From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <antonin(dot)houska(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Backup throttling |
Date: | 2013-08-27 11:58:30 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ6xx0VCTO+ADcLO5cVrnVR03so_gq8vaSJuMU8JE+fCA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> Throttling in the client seems much better to me. TCP is designed to handle
> a slow client.
Other people have already offered some good points in this area, but
let me just add one thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet.
We have a *general* need to be able to throttle server-side resource
utilization, particularly I/O. This is a problem not only for
pg_basebackup, but for COPY, CLUSTER, VACUUM, and even things like
UPDATE. Of all of those, the only one for which we currently have any
kind of a solution is VACUUM. Now, maybe pg_basebackup also needs its
own special-purpose solution, but I think we'd do well to consider a
general I/O rate-limiting strategy and then consider particular needs
in the light of that framework. In that context, server-side seems
better to me, because something like CLUSTER isn't going to produce
anything that the client can effectively limit.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Benedikt Grundmann | 2013-08-27 12:14:00 | Re: Backup throttling |
Previous Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2013-08-27 11:21:42 | Re: Behaviour of take over the synchronous replication |