| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: cheaper snapshots |
| Date: | 2011-07-29 14:23:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaM=_9mm9-PFsNU6NTgfbF=CEeNZcaXFXZLxOXwtg256w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> An additional point to think about: if we were willing to insist on
>> streaming replication, we could send the commit sequence numbers via a
>> side channel rather than writing them to WAL, which would be a lot
>> cheaper.
>
> Why do you think that side channel is cheaper than main WAL ?
You don't have to flush it to disk, and you can use some other lock
that isn't as highly contended as WALInsertLock to synchronize it.
>> That might even be a reasonable thing to do, because if
>> you're doing log shipping, this is all going to be super-not-real-time
>> anyway.
>
> But perhaps you still may want to preserve visibility order to be able
> to do PITR to exact transaction "commit", no ?
Maybe. In practice, I suspect most people won't be willing to pay the
price a feature like this would exact.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2011-07-29 14:31:03 | Re: cheaper snapshots |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2011-07-29 14:20:19 | Re: cheaper snapshots |