| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Frost <jeff(at)pgexperts(dot)com>, Matheus de Oliveira <matioli(dot)matheus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Soni M <diptatapa(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres Replaying WAL slowly |
| Date: | 2014-07-02 19:14:52 |
| Message-ID: | 19807.1404328492@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-07-01 15:20:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It seems like there are three, not mutually exclusive, ways we might
>> address this:
> But I think more importantly it's probably quite possible to hit a
> similar problem without ON COMMIT DROP relations. Say DISCARD TEMP
> inside a transaction (with several subxacts) or so? So we probaly really
> should fix the bad scaling.
Well, my thought was that these approaches would address somewhat
different sets of use-cases, and we might well want to do more than one.
Even if StandbyReleaseLocks were zero-cost, not emitting the WAL in the
first place is surely considerably cheaper yet.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-07-03 09:34:14 | Re: Postgres Replaying WAL slowly |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-07-02 19:01:11 | Re: Postgres Replaying WAL slowly |