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

Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration
Date: 2010-02-28 20:54:52
Message-ID: m2fx4lgjxf.fsf@hi-media.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> 2) A more usable vacuum_defer_cleanup_age.  If it was feasible for a
> user to configure the master to not vacuum records less than, say, 5
> minutes dead, then that would again offer the choice to the user of
> slightly degraded performance on the master (acceptable) vs. lots of
> query cancel (unacceptable).  I'm going to test Greg's case with
> vacuum_cleanup_age used fairly liberally to see if this approach has
> merit.

I think that to associate any time based interval notion with the XID
flow, you need a ticker. We already took the txid and txid_snapshot
types and functions from Skytools, which took them from Slony.

Maybe we could consider borrowing pgqd, the C version of the ticker, for
being able to specify in human time how long a dead transaction is
allowed to remain in the heap?

  http://github.com/markokr/skytools-dev/tree/master/sql/ticker/

Regards,
-- 
dim

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2010-02-28 20:59:03
Subject: Re: contrib/xml2 pfree bug
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-02-28 20:48:51
Subject: Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration

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