| From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: register/unregister standby Re: Synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2010-09-02 11:10:33 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTim0=-8oU2PSUeEvGiWZJtYcuBkG08Y=7HS6v6dY@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> wrote:
>> One issue of the base backup function is that the operation will
>> be a long transaction. So, non-transactional special commands,
>> as like as VACUUM, would be better in terms of performance.
>> For example, CREATE or ALTER REPLICATION.
>
> Well, you still need to stream the data to the client in a format it
> will understand.
True, but using libpq connection might be not the most important thing.
The most simplest proof-of-concept might be system("rsync") in the function ;-)
> Would that be the plan of your command proposal?
What I meant was function-based maintenance does not work well in some
cases. I heard before pg_start_backup( no-fast-checkpoint ) caused table
bloating problem because it was a long transaction for 20+ minutes.
The backup function would have the similar issue.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-09-02 12:03:38 | Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-09-02 10:54:52 | Re: register/unregister standby Re: Synchronous replication |