On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>> On 10/19/2010 09:06 AM, Greg Smith wrote: >>>> I think Magnus's idea to bump the default to 5 triages the worst of the >>>> annoyance here, without dropping the feature (which has uses) or waiting >>>> for new development to complete. > >> Setting max_wal_senders to a non-zero value causes additional work to >> be done every time a transaction commits, aborts, or is prepared. > > Yes. This isn't just a numeric parameter; it's also a boolean > indicating "do I want to pay the overhead to be prepared to be a > replication master?". Josh has completely failed to make a case that > that should be the default. In fact, the system would fail to start > at all if we just changed the default for max_wal_senders and not the > default for wal_level. > > regards, tom lane
If the variable is altered such that it is dynamic, could it not be updated by the postmaster when a connection attempts to begin replicating? -- Rob Wultsch wult...@gmail.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
