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

Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

From: James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>
To: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Date: 2008-06-01 20:16:51
Message-ID: 484303B3.10109@mansionfamily.plus.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> The whole single-threaded WAL replay problem is going to rear it's ugly
> head here too, and mean that a slave *won't* be able to keep up with a
> busy master if it's actually trying to apply all the changes in
> real-time.
Is there a reason to commit at the same points that the master 
committed?  Wouldn't relaxing
that mean that at least you would get 'big' commits and some economy of 
scale?  It might
not be too bad.  All I can say is that Sybase warm standby is useful, 
even though the rep
for an update that changes a hundred rows is a hundred updates keyed on 
primary key,
which is pretty sucky in terms of T-SQL performance.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2008-06-01 20:42:11
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Previous:From: James MansionDate: 2008-06-01 19:57:00
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2008-06-01 20:42:11
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Previous:From: James MansionDate: 2008-06-01 19:57:00
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

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