Re: Hot standby, slot ids and stuff

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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