Re: finding changed blocks using WAL scanning

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: finding changed blocks using WAL scanning
Date: 2019-04-20 13:18:32
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:21:36AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> As to that, what I'm proposing here is no different than what we are
> already doing with physical and logical replication, except that it's
> probably a bit cheaper. Physical replication reads all the WAL and
> sends it all out over the network. Logical replication reads all the
> WAL, does a bunch of computation, and then sends the results, possibly
> filtered, out over the network. This would read the WAL and then
> write a relatively small file to your local disk.
> I think the impact will be about the same as having one additional
> standby, give or take.

Good point.

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2019-04-20 13:41:11 Re: Add missing operator <->(box, point)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2019-04-20 13:18:15 Re: finding changed blocks using WAL scanning