Greg Stark wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> There's *definitely* not going to be enough information in the WAL
>> stream coming from a master that doesn't think it has HS slaves.
>> We can't afford to record all that extra stuff in installations for
>> which it's just useless overhead. BTW, has anyone made any attempt
>> to measure the performance hit that the patch in its current form is
>> creating via added WAL entries?
> What extra entries?
* An xact-assignment record is written every PGPROC_MAX_CACHED_SUBXIDS
(= 64) subtransaction ids assigned to a single top-level transaction.
* A running-xacts record is written at every online checkpoint
* A btree-reuse-page record is written whenever a dead b-tree page is
* A vacuum cleanup-info record is written once per VACUUM of a table
* A standby-lock record is written for each AccessExclusiveLock acquired.
Am I missing something?
I doubt any of these are noticeable, though I don't think anyone has
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-02-27 06:59:10|
|Subject: Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication
|Previous:||From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram||Date: 2010-02-27 06:52:26|
|Subject: Re: Testing of parallel restore with current snapshot|