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

Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, hs(at)cybertec(dot)at, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication
Date: 2009-11-30 03:18:22
Message-ID: 3f0b79eb0911291918r266ad0b0h4948a9d3e3ccae8e@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> I don't think its reasonable trying to discuss and implement this all
> in one huge patch so I propose implementing at least 1) as a seperate
> patch.

I agree with this development plan.

> Now there unforatunately are two different schools of thought how to implement transfering base data.
> 1. archive_command like transfer command taking a source path/host and target path/host
>   - very flexible (think e.g. not transferring the data for multiple slaves over the whole country)
>   - harder to setup
>   - more in style of classical wal archiving
> 2. add the capability to the WAL Streaming patch's libpq based protocol
>   - no additional configuration needed
>   - inflexible
>   - makes usage from non streaming replication is impossible
>
> I favor 1. but only lightly so.

I favor 2 ;) Because I think that it's too hard for users to set up
a transfer command. One of streaming replication's merits is that
users no longer need to specify a transfer command for log-shipping.
So users can configure and use replication without complex settings.
But, #1 would spoil this merit.

> Detail Questions:
> - How to deal with multiple transfer requests at the same time?
>  There would be a need for multiple full backup requests for
>  individual tables by several clients at once.
>  Currently pg_start_backup() isn't allowed from
>  two clients in parallel, the second one gets an error.
>  We thought that pg_start_backup() and pg_stop_backup()
>  can turn into simple reference counts. IIRC, WALs
>  are still generated and _shipped to slaves_ during
>  a full backup, they are simply not yet applied to
>  base table files. So, in this case a pg_stop_backup()
>  issued from a slave decreases refcount of the base backups
>  and the slave can simply resume applying its newly
>  received WALs to base files.

I'm not sure how. But at first multiple online-backup feature
rather than backup-shipping itself might have to be addressed.

Regards,

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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2009-11-30 03:20:53
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2009-11-30 03:01:59
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION

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