| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Antonin Houska <antonin(dot)houska(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Backup throttling |
| Date: | 2013-08-19 19:11:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20130819191100.GD26775@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-08-19 20:15:51 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> 2013-08-19 19:20 keltezéssel, Andres Freund írta:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On 2013-07-24 09:20:52 +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> >>Hello,
> >>the purpose of this patch is to limit impact of pg_backup on running server.
> >>Feedback is appreciated.
> >Based on a quick look it seems like you're throttling on the receiving
> >side. Is that a good idea? Especially over longer latency links, TCP
> >buffering will reduce the effect on the sender side considerably.
> Throttling on the sender side requires extending the syntax of
> BASE_BACKUP and maybe START_REPLICATION so both can be
> throttled but throttling is still initiated by the receiver side.
Seems fine to me. Under the premise that the idea is decided to be
worthwile to be integrated. Which I am not yet convinced of.
> Maybe throttling the walsender is not a good idea, it can lead
> to DoS via disk space shortage.
Not in a measurably different way than receiver side throttling?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2013-08-19 19:14:39 | Re: Backup throttling |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2013-08-19 19:10:02 | Re: [GENERAL] currval and DISCARD ALL |