| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous replication, reading WAL for sending |
| Date: | 2008-12-24 08:48:55 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0812240048x440e907aw190ecee0f47a9224@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> And, I'm worried about the situation that the speed to generate xlog
> on the primary is higher than that to copy them to the standby. We
> might not be able to start xlog streaming forever.
>
If that's the case, how do you expect the standby to keep pace with
the primary after initial sync up ? Frankly, I myself have every doubt
that on a relatively high load setup, the standby will not be able
keep pace with the primary for two reasons:
- Lack of read ahead of data blocks (Suzuki-san's work may help this)
- Single threaded recovery
But then these are general problems which may impact any log-based replication.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2008-12-24 09:31:14 | Re: Synchronous replication, reading WAL for sending |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2008-12-24 08:20:35 | Re: Synchronous replication, reading WAL for sending |