Re: Hot Standby and 64+ subxids (was COPY enhancements)
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hot Standby and 64+ subxids (was COPY enhancements) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4AF8BB7F.1030305@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Hot Standby and 64+ subxids (was COPY enhancements) (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Hot Standby and 64+ subxids (was COPY enhancements)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 11:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Subcommitting every single row is going to be really painful, >>> especially after Hot Standby goes in and we have to issue a WAL record >>> after every 64 subtransactions (AIUI). >>> >> Yikes ... I had not been following that discussion, but that sure sounds >> like a deal-breaker. For HS, not this. >> > > Probably worth expanding this thought... > > HS writes a WAL record for subtransactions at the point that the subxid > cache overflows for any single transaction. Current cache size = 64. > Top-level transaction then writes one additional WAL record every > additional 64 subxids after that. These are known as xid assignment > records. > > If we execute transactions that completely fit in subxid cache we don't > write any WAL records at all. There is no cumulative effect. So in most > applications, we never write xid assignment records at all. > > Does that cover your objection, or do you see other issues? > > I don't recall seeing an answer to this, and I can't find one on the list archives either. Is it no longer an issue? cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: