Re: Production block comparison facility

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Production block comparison facility
Date: 2014-07-22 12:46:13
Message-ID: CA+U5nMKPoc6Z32Zu+3xrpf+MdYcEA6h1j=6LRHnSMRwKT367Cg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 22 July 2014 12:54, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> If you're always going FPW then there's no point in the rest of the record.

I think its a simple matter to mark them XLP_BKP_REMOVABLE and to skip
any optimization of remainder of WAL records.

> The point here was to find problems so that users could run normally with
> confidence.

Yes, but a full overwrite mode would provide an even safer mode of operation.

> The cases you might want to run in the mode you describe are the build farm
> or integration testing. When treating your application on the next release
> of postgres it would be nice to have tests for the replication in your
> workload given the experience in 9.3.
>
> Even without the constant full page writes a live production system could do
> a FPW comparison after a FPW if it was in a consistent state. That would
> give standbys periodic verification at low costs.

Yes, the two options I proposed are somewhat independent of each other.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message MauMau 2014-07-22 13:18:03 Re: [bug fix] Suppress "autovacuum: found orphan temp table" message
Previous Message Greg Stark 2014-07-22 11:54:58 Re: Production block comparison facility