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

Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
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 21:44:20
Message-ID: 5617.1267220660@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> 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?

Locks, just for starters.  I haven't read enough of the code yet to know
what else Simon added.  In the past it's not been necessary to record
any transient information in WAL, but now we'll have to.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-02-26 21:48:38
Subject: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2010-02-26 21:39:12
Subject: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration

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