Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup throttling doesn't throttle as promised

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeff Janes
Тема Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup throttling doesn't throttle as promised
Дата
Msg-id CAMkU=1wtMbDSGHcheo_xSHpFi=M2dLsFX6deqJNNoP33N=gvug@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на [HACKERS] pg_basebackup throttling doesn't throttle as promised  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup throttling doesn't throttle as promised  (Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>)
Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup throttling doesn't throttle as promised  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup throttling doesn't throttle as promised  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
The "-r" option to pg_basebackup is supposed to throttle the rate of the backup.  But it only works properly if the server is mostly idle.

Every non-trivial call to XLogFlush or XLogBackgroundFlush will wake up the wal sender (the one which is not really sending wal, but base files), and the throttling routine doesn't go back to sleep after being awoke early.  Rather, it releases another 32kb of data.


Should the basebackup.c throttle sleep in a loop until its time has expired?  

Or should walsender.c WalSndWakeup not wake a wal sender whose status is WALSNDSTATE_BACKUP?

Or both?


I'm attaching a patch for each option.  Each one independently solves the problem.  But I think we should do both.  There is no point in issuing unnecessary kill system calls, and there may also be more spurious wake-ups than just these ones.

Cheers,

Jeff
Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] tupconvert.c API change in v10 release notes
Следующее
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II