On 2015-02-03 10:41:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Additionally I think we should change the default for wal_level to > > hot_standby and max_wal_senders (maybe to 5). That way users can use > > pg_basebackup and setup streaming standbys without having to restart the > > primary. I think that'd be a important step in making setup easier. > > I always thought the reason for defaulting to "minimal" was performance. > I'd like to see proof that the impact of wal_level = hot_standby is > negligible before we consider doing this.
Well, it really depends on what you're doing. The cases where minimal is beneficial is when you COPY into a table that's been created in the same (sub)xact or rewrite it.. Other than that there's not really a difference? > The argument that having to change one more GUC is an undue burden while > configuring hot standby seems ridiculous from here. HS is not nearly > "push the EASY button and you're done", and this change wouldn't make > it so. But pg_basebackup is pretty close to being that easy, isn't it? There's still pg_hba.conf to deal with, but other than that... And with a littlebit more work (safely autocreate replication slots, so wal files aren't getting removed prematurely), we can make amke HS simpler as well. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
