From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bump default wal_level to logical |
Date: | 2020-06-09 13:28:54 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J0we5qsZ-ZOwXPbZyvwdWbnT43knO2Cxidia2aHxZSJw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:57 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2020-06-08 13:27:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > If we can allow wal_level to be changed on the fly, I agree that would
> > > help reduce the pressure to make the default setting more expensive.
> > > I don't recall why it's PGC_POSTMASTER right now, but I suppose there
> > > was a reason for that ...
> >
> > There's reasons, but IIRC they're all solvable with reasonable effort. I
> > think most of it boils down to only being able to rely on the new
> > wal_level after a while. For minimal->recovery we basically need a
> > checkpoint started after the change in configuration, and for
> > recovery->logical we need to wait until all sessions have a) read the
> > new config setting b) finished the transaction that used the old
> > setting.
> >
>
> What if we note down the highest transaction id when we set wal_level
> = logical and won't allow a snapshot in logical decoding to reach a
> consistent state till we see at least that xid as committed? I think
> this will mean that it won't allow to decode any transaction which is
> operated with wal_level < logical and that might serve the purpose.
>
I intend to say that if the above is possible then we don't need to
wait for (b).
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2020-06-09 14:00:13 | pg_dump and concurrent DDL activity |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-06-09 13:27:27 | Re: Bump default wal_level to logical |