Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Michael Paquier
Тема
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Дата
Msg-id
CAB7nPqSyfsg=gHeqgXyzP0iGWvdyrXqnG-UENzfueaU=2m5-zg@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
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
От: Fujii Masao
Дата:
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
FAQ