From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: On-the-fly index tuple deletion vs. hot_standby |
Date: | 2011-06-14 04:28:53 |
Message-ID: | 20110614042853.GD11441@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 04:16:06PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Assuming that conclusion, I do think it's worth starting
> >> with something simple, even if it means additional bloat on the master in the
> >> wal_level=hot_standby + vacuum_defer_cleanup_age / hot_standby_feedback case.
> >> In choosing those settings, the administrator has taken constructive steps to
> >> accept master-side bloat in exchange for delaying recovery conflict. ?What's
> >> your opinion?
> >
> > I'm pretty disinclined to go tinkering with 9.1 at this point, too.
>
> Not least because a feature already exists in 9.1 to cope with this
> problem: hot standby feedback.
A standby's receipt of an XLOG_BTREE_REUSE_PAGE record implies that the
accompanying latestRemovedXid preceded or equaled the master's RecentXmin at the
time of issue (see _bt_page_recyclable()). Neither hot_standby_feedback nor
vacuum_defer_cleanup_age affect RecentXmin. Therefore, neither facility delays
conflicts arising directly from B-tree page reuse. See attached test script,
which yields a snapshot conflict despite active hot_standby_feedback.
Thanks,
nm
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
repro-btree-reuse-feedback.sh | application/x-sh | 1.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-06-14 05:08:26 | Cascade replication |
Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2011-06-14 04:21:50 | Re: pgbench cpu overhead (was Re: lazy vxid locks, v1) |