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

Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 21:22:47
Message-ID: 407d949e1002261322u68716eddl6fe33d5985ca620f@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> There's *definitely* not going to be enough information in the WAL
> stream coming from a master that doesn't think it has HS slaves.
> We can't afford to record all that extra stuff in installations for
> which it's just useless overhead.  BTW, has anyone made any attempt
> to measure the performance hit that the patch in its current form is
> creating via added WAL entries?

What extra entries?


-- 
greg

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-26 21:30:34
Subject: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-02-26 21:22:15
Subject: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2013 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group