Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > [most significant extra WAL logging for hot standby is:] > * one extra WAL record every checkpoint, containing a full current > snapshot's worth of running xids 100-400 bytes typically, could go > up from there to 4000 bytes in very extreme write workloads that > also have many, many subtransactions The most convincing evidence that there's no significant performance hit for those not needing the feature (and not a bad thing from a testing point of view anyway) would be for someone to run some benchmarks comparing the archive and hot_standby logging levels, with no archive script or SR. If that hasn't been done yet, maybe you could find somebody who knows his way around pgbench-tools, who could construct a reasonable test and produce graphs and all that cool stuff. ;-) IMO, isolating the cost of generating and writing the extra WAL would be very valuable, and it would be reassuring to know that it worked with a large number of clients without exposing any dire race conditions. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
