| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL Rate Limiting |
| Date: | 2014-01-16 15:39:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20140116153911.GA21170@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-01-16 10:35:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I don't really see much difficulty in determining what's a utility
> > command and what not for the purpose of this? All utility commands which
> > create WAL in O(table_size) or worse.
>
> By that definition, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE can all be "utility
> commands". So would a full-table-scan SELECT, if it's unfortunate
> enough to run into a lot of hint-setting or HOT-pruning work.
Well, I said *utility* command. So everything processed by
ProcessUtility() generating WAL like that.
> I think possibly a more productive approach to this would be to treat
> it as a session-level GUC setting, rather than hard-wiring it to affect
> certain commands and not others.
Do you see a reasonable way to implement this generically for all
commands? I don't.
We shouldn't let the the need for generic resource control stop us from
providing some for of resource control for a consistent subset of
commands.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-16 15:44:19 | Re: Display oprcode and its volatility in \do+ |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-16 15:35:20 | Re: WAL Rate Limiting |