| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Syncrep and improving latency due to WAL throttling |
| Date: | 2023-01-28 00:37:49 |
| Message-ID: | 76011149-38ad-5a73-7f17-e4c2885b9bdc@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/27/23 22:19, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-01-27 12:06:49 +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 4:49 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>>
>>> Huh? Why did you remove the GUC?
>>
>> After reading previous threads, my optimism level of getting it ever
>> in shape of being widely accepted degraded significantly (mainly due
>> to the discussion of wider category of 'WAL I/O throttling' especially
>> in async case, RPO targets in async case and potentially calculating
>> global bandwidth).
>
> I think it's quite reasonable to limit this to a smaller scope. Particularly
> because those other goals are pretty vague but ambitious goals. IMO the
> problem with a lot of the threads is precisely that that they aimed at a level
> of generallity that isn't achievable in one step.
>
+1 to that
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-01-28 00:45:31 | Re: Optimizing PostgreSQL with LLVM's PGO+LTO |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-01-28 00:36:17 | Re: Syncrep and improving latency due to WAL throttling |