Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
От
Michael Paquier
Тема
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Дата
Msg-id
CAB7nPqSyfsg=gHeqgXyzP0iGWvdyrXqnG-UENzfueaU=2m5-zg@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. (Fujii Masao)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > So, isn't it better to compare the performance of some algorithms and > confirm which is the best for quorum commit? Since this code is hot, i.e., > can be very frequently executed, I'd like to avoid waste of cycle as much > as possible. It seems to me that it would be simple enough to write a script to do that to avoid any other noise: allocate an array with N random elements, and fetch the M-th element from it after applying a sort method. I highly doubt that you'd see much difference with a low number of elements, now if you scale at a thousand standbys in a quorum set you may surely see something :*) Anybody willing to try out? -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления