| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL Rate Limiting |
| Date: | 2014-01-16 16:29:11 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLc-xDuF4-4+DkC_80AHh3-2=--JnfU3UxXLV0W_4_wyA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16 January 2014 17:22, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-16 11:19:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > I think the usecases that would want this for DML probably also wan this
>> > to work for unlogged, temp tables.
>>
>> Huh? Unlogged tables generate *zero* WAL, by definition.
>
> Yes. That's my point. If we provide it as a generic resource control -
> which what's being discussed here sounds to me - it should be generic.
>
> If we provide as a measure to prevent standbys from getting out of date
> due to maintenance commands, then it only needs to cover those.
Agreed, but it won't happen in this release. I/O resource control to
follow in later releases.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-16 16:29:16 | Re: WAL Rate Limiting |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-16 16:22:48 | Re: WAL Rate Limiting |