Multimaster

From: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Multimaster
Date: 2016-04-01 10:33:04
Message-ID: 56FE4E60.4010008@postgrespro.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Hi,

Our company PostgresPRO is now developing multimaster for Postgres, some
analogue of MySQL Galera.
It is based on logical replication and pglogical plugin from
2ndQuandrand and uses distributed transaction manager.
The main differences of multimaster from standard PostgreSQL streaming
replication with hot standby are:

1. There is no time gap between master and slave (which is currently
present even for synchronous streaming replication).
2. It is possible to execute any transaction on any node. In case of hot
standby you can only execute read-only queries on replicas and,
moreover, you can not create temporary tables to store the results of
complex queries. With hot standby you have to change your application by
separating read-only and read-write transactions or use special proxies
like PgBouncer.
3. Multimaster provides high-availability out of the box: it is able to
detect node failure and provide automatic recovery and node return to
the cluster. Unlike HA stacks based on streaming replication,
multimaster doesn't require any external tools like corosync and pacemaker.

Unlike bidirectional replication, multimaster provides distributed
consistency: all transactions will always see consistent snapshots.
If transactions on different nodes are trying to update the same data,
then conflicts will be detected in the same way as in standalone
Postgres. No custom conflict resolution is required.
Multimaster is using two phase commit, so a transaction is either
applied on all nodes or on none. Thus the data of all online nodes are
identical.

Multimaster doesn't provide:
1. Write scalability: the changes have to be applied to all nodes, so
there can not be any write performance gain over standalone server. If
you need write scalability, use sharding. In this case you have to use
Postgres-XL, GreenPlum, pg_shard, or some application-level solution.
2. Optimization of complex analytic queries using distributed query
execution. Multimaster doesn't build distributed execution plans and can
not speed-up execution of single heavy query.
3. Georeplication. Although it is possible to have multimaster nodes in
different data centers, in practice it will lead to very low write
performance. For such scenarios asynchronous BDR is much better solution.

So multimaster may be efficient for providing high availability and load
balancing when most of your queries are read-only.

It will be interesting for us to get user's feedbacks and collect
possible use cases and workloads for multimaster.
Performance of multimaster greatly depends on relative amount of update
queries and transaction size (most of multimaster overhead is related to
transaction processing). In case of simple pgbench-like queries
performance of three-node multimaster is about two times lower than
performance of standalone Postgres on update queries and about two times
higher on read-only queries.
In case of complex analytic queries (like TPC-H) results are much better
and multimaster provides almost linear scalability.
But multimaster is not intended for read-only OLAP: there are more
efficient solutions.
We expect most performance benefits for OLTP with high ratio of
read-only queries.
This is why we try to find workloads for multimaster as close to real
life as possible. Any references to benchmarks, examples of queries,
scenarios, etc. are welcome.

Also we would like to get feedback for the following questions:

1. Currently logical replication requires primary key for replicated
table (otherwise the updates can not be propagated).
How critical can this limitation be for potential multimaster use cases?

2. Is it necessary to support local (not replicated) tables?

3. Right now multimaster replicates the whole instance. Alternatively we
can try to implement database-level replication, making it possible
to provide more flexible configurations of different databases connected
into different clusters. It is hard to estimate now how difficult it
will be to support such mode, but first of all we want to know if this
feature is really needed?

4. We plan to implement sharding support. But first we also have to
understand what people want from cluster first of all?
HA, load balancing, distributed queries, etc. In particular: what use
cases do you see for multimaster without sharding?

5.What is the preferred way of cluster configuration: through
postgresql.conf or using some special API allowing to dynamically
add/remove nodes from cluster?

Thanks in advance,

--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2016-04-01 11:38:19 Re: Multimaster
Previous Message arnaud gaboury 2016-04-01 10:15:40 Re: Query from two tables return error