Re: Backup throttling
От | Boszormenyi Zoltan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Backup throttling |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 521311AA.8040807@cybertec.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Backup throttling (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2013-08-20 08:37 keltezéssel, Heikki Linnakangas írta: > On 19.08.2013 21:15, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: >> 2013-08-19 19:20 keltezéssel, Andres Freund írta: >>> 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. > > Throttling in the client seems much better to me. TCP is designed to handle a slow client. > >> Maybe throttling the walsender is not a good idea, it can lead >> to DoS via disk space shortage. > > If a client can initiate a backup and/or streaming replication, he can already do much > more damage than a DoS via out of disk space. And a nothing stops even a non-privileged > user from causing an out of disk space situation anyway. IOW that's a non-issue. I got to the same conclusion this morning, but because of wal_keep_segments. Best regards, Zoltán Böszörményi > > - Heikki > > -- ---------------------------------- 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: