From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hot standby, slot ids and stuff |
Date: | 2009-01-08 20:31:44 |
Message-ID: | 496662B0.5020208@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> If you want to do things a different way you need to say what you want
> to do and what effects those changes will have.
I want to reduce the coupling between the primary and the master. The
less they need to communicate, the better. I want to get rid of slotid,
and as many of the other extra information carried in WAL records that I
can. I believe that will make the patch both simpler and more robust.
> Are there tradeoffs? If so what are they?
I don't think there's any big difference in user-visible behavior.
RecordKnownAssignedTransactionId now needs to be called for every xlog
record as opposed to just the first record where an xid appears, because
I eliminated the hint flag in WAL to mark those records. And it needs to
look up the recover proc by xid, instead of using the slot id. But I
don't think that will have a significant impact on performance.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2009-01-08 20:33:43 | Re: Significant oversight in that #include-removal script |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-01-08 20:31:28 | Re: Hot standby, slot ids and stuff |