From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration |
Date: | 2010-03-02 04:54:04 |
Message-ID: | 201003020454.o224s4601113@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joachim Wieland wrote:
> 1) With the current implementation they will see better performance on
> the master and more aggressive vacuum (!), since they have less
> long-running queries now on the master and autovacuum can kick in and
> clean up with less delay than before. On the other hand their queries
> on the standby might fail and they will start thinking that this HS+SR
> feature is not as convincing as they thought it was... Next step for
> them is to take the documentation and study it for a few days to learn
> all about vacuum, different delays, transaction ids and age parameters
> and experiment a few weeks until no more queries fail - for a while...
> But they can never be sure... In the end they might also modify the
> parameters in the wrong direction or overshoot because of lack of time
> to experiment and lose another important property without noticing
> (like being as close as possible to the master).
I assumed they would set max_standby_delay = -1 and be happy.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-03-02 04:56:45 | Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-02 04:37:01 | Re: Hung postmaster (8.3.9) |