| From: | "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Ashutosh Bapat" <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: I'd like to discuss scaleout at PGCon |
| Date: | 2018-06-06 22:39:34 |
| Message-ID: | BD931CB77B514BC6AEFEA85C82469A6A@tunaPC |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Alvaro Herrera
> Maybe an easy (hah) thing to do is use 2PC for DDL, agree on a OID
> that's free on every node, then create the object in all servers at
the
> same time. We currently use the system-wide OID generator to assign
the
> OID, but seems an easy thing to change (much harder is to prevent
> concurrent creation of objects using the arranged OID; maybe can
reuse
> speculative tokens in btrees for this).
Would it mean that DDL execution requires all (primary) nodes to be
running? I don't say it's an immediate problem yet, but FYI, Oracle
Sharding records all DDL statements and re-send them to the down nodes
later.
> Doing this imposes a cost at
> DDL-execution-time only, which seems much better than imposing the
cost
> of translating name to OID on every server for every query.
Agreed.
Regards
MauMau
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-06-06 23:06:19 | Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization |
| Previous Message | MauMau | 2018-06-06 22:38:57 | Re: I'd like to discuss scaleout at PGCon |