| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Retry in pgbench |
| Date: | 2021-04-16 05:11:26 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2104160705120.481047@pseudo |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> It would be useful to test replicating clusters with a (switch|fail)over
>> procedure.
>
> Interesting idea but in general a failover takes sometime (like a few
> minutes), and it will strongly affect TPS. I think in the end it just
> compares the failover time.
>
> Or are you suggesting to ignore the time spent in failover?
Or simply to be able to measure it simply from a client perspective? How
much delay is introduced, how long is endured to go back to the previous
tps level…
My recollection of Marina patch is that it was non trivial, adding such a
new and interesting feature suggests a set of patches, not just one patch.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-04-16 05:20:38 | Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2021-04-16 03:38:06 | Re: Replication slot stats misgivings |