Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
От
Bruce Momjian
Тема
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
Дата
Msg-id
20160803133307.GA13027@momjian.us
Ответ на
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user (Bruce Momjian)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Why we lost Uber as a user "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user Vik Fearing <vik@2ndquadrant.fr>
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:33:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I saw from the Uber article that they weren't going to per-row logical > replication but _statement_ replication, which is very hard to do > because typical SQL doesn't record what concurrent transactions > committed before a new statement's transaction snapshot is taken, and > doesn't record lock order for row updates blocked by concurrent activity > --- both of which affect the final result from the query. > > So, for statement replication, it is not a question of whether the code > has bugs, but that the replay is not 100% possible in all cases, unless > you switch to some statement-row-lock hybrid ability. Oh, and one more problem with statement-level replication is that the overhead of statement replay is high, as high as it was on the master. That leaves minimal server resources left to handle read-only workloads on the slave. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Joshua Bay
Дата:
От: Craig Ringer
Дата: