On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 08:33:52AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > Or in short, this seems like an annoyance, not a time-for-a-new-database > > kind of problem. > > Well, the real annoyance as I understand it is the raw volume of bytes > of WAL traffic a single update of a field can cause. They switched to > statement level replication(!).
Well, their big complaint about binary replication is that a bug can spread from a master to all slaves, which doesn't happen with statement level replication. If that type of corruption is your primary worry, and you can ignore the worries about statement level replication, then it makes sense. Of course, the big tragedy is that statement level replication has known unfixable(?) failures, while binary replication failures are caused by developer-introduced bugs. In some ways, people worry about the bugs they have seen, not the bugs they haven't seen. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
