Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> You're assuming that we should set up the default behavior to support
>> replication and penalize those who aren't using it.
> What's the penalty? Simon just said that there isn't one.
I don't know what Simon is thinking, but I think he's nuts. There is is
obvious extra overhead in COMMIT:
/*
* Wake up all walsenders to send WAL up to the COMMIT record
* immediately if replication is enabled
*/
if (max_wal_senders > 0)
WalSndWakeup();
which AFAICT is injecting multiple kernel calls into what's not only
a hot-spot but a critical section (ie, any error -> PANIC).
That's not even considering the extra WAL that is generated when you
move up from wal_level = "minimal". That's probably the bigger
performance issue in practice.
> And there's a difference between saying that I "failed to make a case"
> vs. "the cost is too great".
I said, and meant, that you didn't make the case at all; you just
presumed it was obvious that we should change the defaults to be
replication-friendly. I don't think it is. As I said, I think that
only a minority of our users are going to want replication.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
