Re: WAL Rate Limiting
| От | Andres Freund | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: WAL Rate Limiting | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20140116153911.GA21170@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | Re: WAL Rate Limiting (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) | 
| Ответы | Re: WAL Rate Limiting | 
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
On 2014-01-16 10:35:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > I don't really see much difficulty in determining what's a utility > > command and what not for the purpose of this? All utility commands which > > create WAL in O(table_size) or worse. > > By that definition, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE can all be "utility > commands". So would a full-table-scan SELECT, if it's unfortunate > enough to run into a lot of hint-setting or HOT-pruning work. Well, I said *utility* command. So everything processed by ProcessUtility() generating WAL like that. > I think possibly a more productive approach to this would be to treat > it as a session-level GUC setting, rather than hard-wiring it to affect > certain commands and not others. Do you see a reasonable way to implement this generically for all commands? I don't. We shouldn't let the the need for generic resource control stop us from providing some for of resource control for a consistent subset of commands. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: