Re: Hot Standby (v9d)
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 49885AF1.6070209@anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) (Hannu Krosing <hannu@krosing.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Hot Standby (v9d)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 02/03/2009 02:26 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote: >> I don't see any way around the fact that when a tuple is removed, it's >> gone and can't be accessed by queries. Either you don't remove it, or >> you kill the query. > Actually we came up with a solution to this - use filesystem level > snapshots (like LVM2+XFS or ZFS), and redirect backends with > long-running queries to use fs snapshot mounted to a different > mountpoint. Isn't that really, really expensive? A single write on the master logical volume yields writes of PE size for _every_ single snapshot (the first time the block is touched) - considering that there could quite many such snapshots I don't think that this is really feasible - io quite possible might be saturated. The default PE size is 4MB - but on most bigger systems it is set to a bigger size, so its just getting worse for bigger systems. Sure, one might say, that this is an LVM deficiency - but I do knot know of any snapshot-able block layer doing it that way. Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: