| 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 |
| Message-ID: | 20190420131832.otoasomzfvxvbymg@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| 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 |