On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > There's *definitely* not going to be enough information in the WAL > stream coming from a master that doesn't think it has HS slaves. > We can't afford to record all that extra stuff in installations for > which it's just useless overhead. BTW, has anyone made any attempt > to measure the performance hit that the patch in its current form is > creating via added WAL entries?
What extra entries? -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
