"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My thought is that in many envoronments it would take much beefier
> hardware to support N postmasters running simultaneously than to cycle
> through them periodically bringing the backups up-to-date.
How you figure that? The cycling approach will require more total I/O
due to extra page re-reads ... particularly if it's built on a patch
like this one that abandons work-in-progress at arbitrary points.
A postmaster running WAL replay does not require all that much in the
way of CPU resources. It is going to need I/O comparable to the gross
I/O load of its master, but cycling isn't going to reduce that at all.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
