Re: Backup throttling
От | Boszormenyi Zoltan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Backup throttling |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52126E9F.7080408@cybertec.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Backup throttling (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2013-08-19 21:11 keltezéssel, Andres Freund írta: > On 2013-08-19 20:15:51 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: >> 2013-08-19 19:20 keltezéssel, Andres Freund írta: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 2013-07-24 09:20:52 +0200, Antonin Houska wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> the purpose of this patch is to limit impact of pg_backup on running server. >>>> Feedback is appreciated. >>> Based on a quick look it seems like you're throttling on the receiving >>> side. Is that a good idea? Especially over longer latency links, TCP >>> buffering will reduce the effect on the sender side considerably. >> Throttling on the sender side requires extending the syntax of >> BASE_BACKUP and maybe START_REPLICATION so both can be >> throttled but throttling is still initiated by the receiver side. > Seems fine to me. Under the premise that the idea is decided to be > worthwile to be integrated. Which I am not yet convinced of. > >> Maybe throttling the walsender is not a good idea, it can lead >> to DoS via disk space shortage. > Not in a measurably different way than receiver side throttling? No, but that's not what I meant. START_BACKUP has to deal with big data but it finishes after some time. But pg_receivexlog may sit there indefinitely... Best regards, Zoltán Böszörményi -- ---------------------------------- Zoltán Böszörményi Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH Gröhrmühlgasse 26 A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de http://www.postgresql.at/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: