Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration
Date: 2010-02-26 20:30:01
Message-ID: 3834.1267216201@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I don't see a "substantial additional burden" there. What I would
>> imagine is needed is that the slave transmits a single number back
>> --- its current oldest xmin --- and the walsender process publishes
>> that number as its transaction xmin in its PGPROC entry on the master.

> And when we want to support cascading slaves?

So?  Fits right in.  The walsender on the first-level slave is
advertising an xmin from the second-level one, which will be included in
what's passed back up to the master.

> Or when you want to bring up a new slave and it suddenly starts
> advertising a new xmin that's older than the current oldestxmin?

How's it going to do that, when it has no queries at the instant
of startup?

> But in any case if I were running a reporting database I would want it
> to just stop replaying logs for a few hours while my big batch report
> runs, not cause the master to be unable to vacuum any dead records for
> hours. That defeats much of the purpose of running the queries on the
> slave.

Well, as Heikki said, a stop-and-go WAL management approach could deal
with that use-case.  What I'm concerned about here is the complexity,
reliability, maintainability of trying to interlock WAL application with
slave queries in any sort of fine-grained fashion.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Yeb HavingaDate: 2010-02-26 20:46:27
Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.
Previous:From: Mark MielkeDate: 2010-02-26 20:29:11
Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group