Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Well, as Heikki said, a stop-and-go WAL management approach could deal
> with that use-case. What I'm concerned about here is the complexity,
> reliability, maintainability of trying to interlock WAL application with
> slave queries in any sort of fine-grained fashion.
Some admin functions for Hot Standby were removed from the path to ease
its integration, there was a pause() and resume() feature.
I think that offering this explicit control to the user would allow them
to choose between HA setup and reporting setup easily enough: just pause
the replay when running the reporting, resume it to get fresh data
again. If you don't pause, any query can get killed, replay is the
Now as far as the feedback loop is concerned, I guess the pause()
function would cause the slave to stop publishing any xmin in the
master's procarray so that it's free to vacuum and archive whatever it
Should the slave accumulate too much lag, it will resume from the
archive rather than live from the SR link.
How much that helps?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-26 21:44:20|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-26 21:30:34|
|Subject: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |