| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, 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 16:22:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20140116162248.GD21170@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-01-16 11:19:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think the usecases that would want this for DML probably also wan this
> > to work for unlogged, temp tables.
>
> Huh? Unlogged tables generate *zero* WAL, by definition.
Yes. That's my point. If we provide it as a generic resource control -
which what's being discussed here sounds to me - it should be generic.
If we provide as a measure to prevent standbys from getting out of date
due to maintenance commands, then it only needs to cover those.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-01-16 16:29:11 | Re: WAL Rate Limiting |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-01-16 16:20:19 | Re: WAL Rate Limiting |