From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers ML <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Keeping separate WAL segments for each database |
Date: | 2010-07-03 11:02:40 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimSA_S8M4YWapNUJmuQMVjZq-YfGSQhKjRFot5s@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/6/30 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> You need to make sure not only that you replay commit records in
>> order, but also that, for example, you don't replay an
>> XLOG_HEAP2_CLEAN record too early.
>
> Hm, good point. That probably means that you *do* need fencepost
> records, and furthermore that you might need an interlock to ensure that
> you get the fencepost in early enough on the other stream. Ugh ---
> there goes your concurrency.
>
> What about having a single WAL stream for all commit records (thereby
> avoiding any possible xact-serialization funnies) and other WAL records
> divided up among multiple streams in some fashion or other? A commit
> record would bear minimum-LSN pointers for all the streams that its
> transaction had written to. Things like HEAP_CLEAN records would bear
> minimum-LSN pointers for the commit stream. Workable?
I don't see why not. Of course, the performance of any of these ideas
is another question altogether...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-07-03 11:59:10 | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |
Previous Message | Mike Fowler | 2010-07-03 08:26:12 | Re: Issue: Deprecation of the XML2 module 'xml_is_well_formed' function |