From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Production block comparison facility |
Date: | 2014-07-22 12:46:13 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKPoc6Z32Zu+3xrpf+MdYcEA6h1j=6LRHnSMRwKT367Cg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22 July 2014 12:54, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> If you're always going FPW then there's no point in the rest of the record.
I think its a simple matter to mark them XLP_BKP_REMOVABLE and to skip
any optimization of remainder of WAL records.
> The point here was to find problems so that users could run normally with
> confidence.
Yes, but a full overwrite mode would provide an even safer mode of operation.
> The cases you might want to run in the mode you describe are the build farm
> or integration testing. When treating your application on the next release
> of postgres it would be nice to have tests for the replication in your
> workload given the experience in 9.3.
>
> Even without the constant full page writes a live production system could do
> a FPW comparison after a FPW if it was in a consistent state. That would
> give standbys periodic verification at low costs.
Yes, the two options I proposed are somewhat independent of each other.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | MauMau | 2014-07-22 13:18:03 | Re: [bug fix] Suppress "autovacuum: found orphan temp table" message |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2014-07-22 11:54:58 | Re: Production block comparison facility |