On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 16:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > The one downside I've found is that it adds 0.2 > seconds of CPU time per WAL file archive during our heaviest update > periods. It's in the archiver process, not a backend process that's > running a query, and we're not generally CPU bound, so this is not a > problem for us.
OK, first time anybody's measured a significant cost to process creation during execution of the archive_command. Still fairly low though. Increasing the size of the WAL files would cure that. :-( -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
