On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm using 9.5.3 . I had read about that bug but I didn't know that > wal_level=archive is equivalent to hot_standby from this point of view! I > guess it's equivalent in 9.5.3 too.
No, this only applies to 9.6 and onward as a result of the introduction of wal_level = replica. archive and hot_standby are kept as aliases for backward-compatibility. For the rest, Amul is right. Switching a segment will happen as long as the current segment is not empty, producing itself new WAL, and making checkpoints happening again. Each behavior taken individually is not harming, it's when they work together that things could be improved. That's the combination of all those activities that the patch I mention upthread is aiming at improving. If this gets integrated, that won't be back-patched though as it is pretty invasive, and that's not a bug if you think about it. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
