Re: Built-in Raft replication
| От | Jim Nasby |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Built-in Raft replication |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMFBP2oGM9N8Kty-3DzRmmgV0=ROB7ss7Rudw8Wida92t9O0+w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Built-in Raft replication (Devrim Gündüz <devrim@gunduz.org>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
I've always assumed there'd have to be at least one global stream, if for no other purpose than to be the source of truth about transaction commit ordering (though, I was thinking of supporting multiple streams for one database). Presumably the same could be used for shared objects. Or perhaps shared objects just get their own stream. Either way, having a master commit record that points at LSNs of various other streams is what I'd been thinking.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 12:01 PM Devrim Gündüz <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2025-04-23 at 11:48 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> unless we added multiple WAL streams. That would allow for splitting
> WAL traffic across multiple devices as well as providing better
> support for configurations that don’t replicate the entire cluster.
> The current situation where delayed replication of a single table
> mandates retention of all the WAL for the entire cluster is less than
> ideal.
I think the problem is handling the stream of global objects. Having
separate stream for each database would be awesome as long as it can
deal with the "global stream".
Regards,
--
Devrim Gündüz
Open Source Solution Architect, PostgreSQL Major Contributor
BlueSky: @devrim.gunduz.org , @gunduz.org
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: