Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code

From: "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code
Date: 2008-12-23 14:31:56
Message-ID: 3f0b79eb0812230631y5382c255g6f3825837a5895b5@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm happy if that whole feature is added. If we do add it, it will be a
> utility like "pg_resync". So in admin terms it will be almost identical
> to using rsync, just a specific version that minimizes effort even more
> than rsync does currently. The only difference as I see it would be some
> gain in performance, but we don't need to send the whole database down
> the wire again in either case.

I think that the type of your user is different from mine. If server fails
by simple termination of process, I don't want to spend 1min for
restarting other than catching up itself. For me, getting a fresh backup
(not only copying backup data but also checkpoint by pg_start_backup)
is expensive operation.

Of course, since I'm not planning to tackle that problem in 8.4,
I would not add "additional" synchronization point.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2008-12-23 14:36:47 Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code
Previous Message Robert Haas 2008-12-23 14:22:27 Re: Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-Batch Hash Join for Skewed Data Sets