From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby |
Date: | 2009-11-20 19:15:46 |
Message-ID: | 4B06EAE2.6090206@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark wrote:
> From discussions in the bar it sounds like this was actually a false
> start however as the RecentGlobalXmin in the backend doing the split
> could be less aggressive than the RecentGlobalXmin used by some other
> backend to hit the hint bits leading to inconsistent results :(
Yeah, RecentGlobalXmin was wrong, it's not used at the moment.
> I'm leaning towards having the backend actually go fetch all the
> xmin/xmaxes of the pointers being pruned. It ought to be possible to
> skip that check in any database with no live snapshots so recovery
> performance would be unaffected on replicas not actively being used in
> hot mode.
Hmm, I have always been thinking that it would be detrimental to
performance to go fetch the xmin/xmaxes, but maybe it indeed wouldn't be
so bad if you could optimize the common case where there's no snapshots
in the standby. Also, if you have a very busy table where a lot of
tuples are killed, many of the heap pages will probably be in cache.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-11-20 19:44:08 | Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: /home/peter/commit-msg |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2009-11-20 18:38:49 | Re: Prettification versus dump safety |