[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       pgsql-hackers
Subject:    Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Infrastructure changes for recovery
From:       Simon Riggs <simon () 2ndQuadrant ! com>
Date:       2008-09-29 15:54:55
Message-ID: 1222703695.4445.1283.camel () ebony ! 2ndQuadrant
[Download RAW message or body]


On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 11:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 10:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... If we crash and restart, we'll have to get to the end
> >> of this file before we start letting backends in; which might be further
> >> than we actually got before the crash, but not too much further because
> >> we already know the whole WAL file is available.
> 
> > Don't want to make it per file though. Big systems can whizz through WAL
> > files very quickly, so we either make it a big number e.g. 255 files per
> > xlogid, or we make it settable (and recorded in pg_control).
> 
> I think you are missing the point I made above.  If you set the
> okay-to-resume point N files ahead, and then the master stops generating
> files so quickly, you've got a problem --- it might be a long time until
> the slave starts letting backends in after a crash/restart.
> 
> Fetching a new WAL segment from the archive is expensive enough that an
> additional write/fsync per cycle doesn't seem that big a problem to me.
> There's almost certainly a few fsync-equivalents going on in the
> filesystem to create and delete the retrieved segment files.

Didn't miss yer point, just didn't agree. :-)

I'll put it at one (1) and then wait for any negative perf reports. No
need to worry about things like that until later.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]