Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Fujii Masao
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Дата
Msg-id CAHGQGwFcEhv8BPP0HV2VQ8kXaHQmfN7PFAgkKsPyVip0frizpg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do we need to consider the sorting method and the selecting k-th
>> latest LSN method?
>
> Honestly, nah. Tests are showing that there are many more bottlenecks
> before that with just memory allocation and parsing.

I think that it's worth prototyping alternative algorithm, and
measuring the performances of those alternative and current
algorithms. This measurement should check not only the bottleneck
but also how much each algorithm increases the time that backends
need to wait for before they receive ack from walsender.

If it's reported that current algorithm is enough "effecient",
we can just leave the code as it is. OTOH, if not, let's adopt
the alternative one.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Craig Ringer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] pgstattuple documentation clarification