Re: Synchronous replication, reading WAL for sending
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Synchronous replication, reading WAL for sending |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1230113413.4793.1064.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Synchronous replication, reading WAL for sending ("Fujii Masao" <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Synchronous replication, reading WAL for sending
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 18:31 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > Frankly, I myself have every doubt > > that on a relatively high load setup, the standby will not be able > > keep pace with the primary for two reasons: > > > > - Lack of read ahead of data blocks (Suzuki-san's work may help this) > > - Single threaded recovery > > > > But then these are general problems which may impact any log-based replication. > > Right. Completely high load setup is probably impossible. There is > certainly a price to pay. But, in order to reduce a price as much as > possible, I think that we should not focus two or more operations > on single process (walsender) just like single threaded recovery. I think we may be pleasantly surprised. In 8.3 there were two main sources of wait: * restartpoints * waiting for archive files Restartpoints will now be handled by bgwriter, giving probably 20% gain, plus the WAL data is streamed directly into memory by walreceiver. So I think the startup process may achieve a better steady state and perform very quickly. Suzuki-san's numbers show that full_page_writes = on does not benefit significantly from having read ahead and we already know that is effective in reducing the I/O bottleneck during recovery. If we want to speed up recovery more, I think we'll see the need for an additional process to do WAL CRC checks. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: