| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming replication, and walsender during recovery |
| Date: | 2010-01-29 08:41:19 |
| Message-ID: | 1264754479.24669.15374.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 17:31 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Hmm, I'm sorry but that's bogus. Retaining so much WAL that we are
> > strongly in danger of blowing disk space is not what I would call a
> > safety feature. Since there is no way to control or restrain the number
> > of files for certain, that approach seems fatally flawed. Reducing
> > checkpoint_timeout is the opposite of what you would want to do for
> > performance.
>
> Why do you worry about that only in the standby?
I don't. The "safety feature" we just added makes it much more likely
that this will happen on standby.
> To improve the situation, I think that we need to use
> checkpoint_segment/timeout as a trigger of restartpoint, regardless
> of the checkpoint record. Though I'm not sure that is possible and
> should be included in v9.0.
Yes, that is a simple change. I think it is needed now.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-01-29 09:33:22 | Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-01-29 08:31:08 | Re: Streaming replication, and walsender during recovery |