On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> This is also the reason why the whole "pause recovery" idea is a fruitless
> path to wander down. The whole point of this feature is that people have a
> secondary server available for high-availability, *first and foremost*, but
> they'd like it to do something more interesting that leave it idle all the
> time. The idea that you can hold off on applying standby updates for long
> enough to run seriously long reports is completely at odds with the idea of
Well you can go sit in the same corner as Simon with your high
I want my ability to run large batch queries without any performance
or reliability impact on the primary server.
You can have one or the other but you can't get both. If you set
max_standby_delay low then you get your high availability server, if
you set it high you get a useful report server.
If you build sync replication which we don't have today and which will
open another huge can of usability worms when we haven't even finish
bottling the two we've already opened then you lose the lack of impact
on the primary. Suddenly the queries you run on the slaves cause your
production database to bloat. Plus you have extra network connections
which take resources on your master and have to be kept up at all
times or you lose your slaves.
I think the design constraint of not allowing any upstream data flow
is actually very valuable. Eventually we'll have it for sync
replication but it's much better that we've built things incrementally
and can be sure that nothing really depends on it for basic
functionality. This is what allows us to know that the slave imposes
no reliability impact on the master. It's what allows us to know that
everything will work identically regardless of whether you have a
walreceiver running or are running off archived log files.
Remember I wanted to entirely abstract away the walreciever and allow
multiple wal communication methods. I think it would make more sense
to use something like Spread to distribute the logs so the master only
has to send them once and as many slaves as you want can pick them up.
The current architecture doesn't scale very well if you want to have
hundreds of slaves for one master.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Mark Mielke||Date: 2010-02-27 00:50:11|
|Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-27 00:36:57|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming