Re: Sync Rep: Second thoughts
От | Emmanuel Cecchet |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Sync Rep: Second thoughts |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 495080A9.7040805@frogthinker.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Sync Rep: Second thoughts (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>) |
Ответы |
Re: Sync Rep: Second thoughts
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Markus, > I'm not quite sure what you mean by "certification protocol", there's no > such thing in Postgres-R (as proposed by Kemme). Although, I remember > having heard that term in the context of F. Pedone's work. Can you point > me to some paper explaining this certification protocol? > What Bettina calls the Lock Phase in http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~kemme/papers/vldb00.pdf is actually a certification. You can find more references to certification protocols in http://gorda.di.uminho.pt/download/reports/gapi.pdf I would also recommend the work of Sameh on Tashkent and Taskent+ that was based on Postgres: http://labos.epfl.ch/webdav/site/labos/users/157494/public/papers/tashkent.eurosys2006.pdf and http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/97654/files/tashkentPlus.eurosys2007.final.pdf >> Certification-based >> approaches have already multiple reliability issues to improve write >> performance compared to statement-based replication, but this is very >> dependent on the capacity of the system to limit the conflicting window >> for concurrent transactions. >> > > What do you mean by "reliability issues"? > These approaches usually require an atomic broadcast primitive that is usually fragile (limited scalability, hard to tune failure timeouts, ). Most prototype implementations have the load balancer and/or the certifier as a SPOF (single point of failure). Building reliability for these components will come with a significant performance penalty. >> The writeset extraction mechanisms have had >> too many limitations so far to allow the use of certification-based >> replication in production (AFAIK). >> > What limitations are you speaking of here? > Oftentimes DDL support is very limited. Non-transactional objects like sequences are not captured. Session or environment variables are not necessarily propagated. Support of temp tables varies between databases which makes it hard to support them properly in a generic way. Well I guess everyone has a story on some limitations it has found with some database replication technology especially when a user expects a cluster to behave like a single database instance. Happy holidays, Emmanuel -- Emmanuel Cecchet FTO @ Frog Thinker Open Source Development & Consulting -- Web: http://www.frogthinker.org email: manu@frogthinker.org Skype: emmanuel_cecchet
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: