| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [WIP] Double-write with Fast Checksums |
| Date: | 2012-01-12 00:09:30 |
| Message-ID: | 29764.1326326970@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 1/11/12 1:25 PM, Dan Scales wrote:
>>> And just wanted to reiterate one other benefit of double writes -- it greatly reduces the size of the WAL logs.
>> Even if you're replicating?
> Yes, but it will increase random I/O on the standby when we replay if
> we don't have FPWs.
The question is how you prevent torn pages when a slave server crashes
during replay. Right now, the presence of FPIs in the WAL stream,
together with the requirement that replay restart from a checkpoint,
is sufficient to guarantee that any torn pages will be fixed up. If
you remove FPIs from WAL and don't transmit some substitute information,
ISTM you've lost protection against slave server crashes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2012-01-12 00:18:01 | WIP -- renaming implicit sequences |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-01-12 00:08:10 | Re: Sending notifications from the master to the standby |