Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby
Date: 2009-11-20 19:15:46
Message-ID: 4B06EAE2.6090206@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark wrote:
> From discussions in the bar it sounds like this was actually a false
> start however as the RecentGlobalXmin in the backend doing the split
> could be less aggressive than the RecentGlobalXmin used by some other
> backend to hit the hint bits leading to inconsistent results :(

Yeah, RecentGlobalXmin was wrong, it's not used at the moment.

> I'm leaning towards having the backend actually go fetch all the
> xmin/xmaxes of the pointers being pruned. It ought to be possible to
> skip that check in any database with no live snapshots so recovery
> performance would be unaffected on replicas not actively being used in
> hot mode.

Hmm, I have always been thinking that it would be detrimental to
performance to go fetch the xmin/xmaxes, but maybe it indeed wouldn't be
so bad if you could optimize the common case where there's no snapshots
in the standby. Also, if you have a very busy table where a lot of
tuples are killed, many of the heap pages will probably be in cache.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2009-11-20 19:44:08 Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: /home/peter/commit-msg
Previous Message Andreas Pflug 2009-11-20 18:38:49 Re: Prettification versus dump safety