|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: WAL insert delay settings|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2019-02-20 18:46:09 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tomas Vondra (tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > On 2/20/19 10:43 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Just to share a few additional thoughts after pondering this for a
> > > while, but the comment Andres made up-thread really struck a chord- we
> > > don't necessairly want to throttle anything, what we'd really rather do
> > > is *prioritize* things, whereby foreground work (regular queries and
> > > such) have a higher priority than background/bulk work (VACUUM, REINDEX,
> > > etc) but otherwise we use the system to its full capacity. We don't
> > > actually want to throttle a VACUUM run any more than a CREATE INDEX, we
> > > just don't want those to hurt the performance of regular queries that
> > > are happening.
> > I think you're forgetting the motivation of this very patch was to
> > prevent replication lag caused by a command generating large amounts of
> > WAL (like CREATE INDEX / ALTER TABLE etc.). That has almost nothing to
> > do with prioritization or foreground/background split.
> > I'm not arguing against ability to prioritize stuff, but I disagree it
> > somehow replaces throttling.
> Why is replication lag an issue though? I would contend it's an issue
> because with sync replication, it makes foreground processes wait, and
> with async replication, it makes the actions of foreground processes
> show up late on the replicas.
I think reaching the bandwidth limit of either the replication stream,
or of the startup process is actually more common than these. And for
that prioritization doesn't help, unless it somehow reduces the total
amount of WAL.
> If the actual WAL records for the foreground processes got priority and
> were pushed out earlier than the background ones, that would eliminate
> both of those issues with replication lag. Perhaps there's other issues
> that replication lag cause but which aren't solved by prioritizing the
> actual WAL records that you care about getting to the replicas faster,
> but if so, I'd like to hear what those are.
Wait, what? Are you actually suggesting that different sources of WAL
records should be streamed out in different order? You're blowing a
somewhat reasonably doable project up into "let's rewrite a large chunk
of all of the durability layer in postgres".
Stephen, we gotta stop blowing up projects into something that can't
ever realistically be finished.
|Next Message||Justin Pryzby||2019-02-20 23:56:33||Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table|
|Previous Message||Andres Freund||2019-02-20 23:50:26||Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue|