Re: Replication identifiers, take 4
От | Petr Jelinek |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Replication identifiers, take 4 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 553170EB.60807@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Replication identifiers, take 4 (Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Replication identifiers, take 4
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 17/04/15 22:36, Simon Riggs wrote: > > I said that IMO the difference in WAL size is so small that we > should just use 4-byte OIDs for the replication identifiers, instead > of trying to make do with 2 bytes. Not because I find it too likely > that you'll run out of IDs (although it could happen), but more to > make replication IDs more like all other system objects we have. > Andreas did some pgbench benchmarking to show that the difference in > WAL size is about 10%. The WAL records generated by pgbench happen > to have just the right sizes so that the 2-3 extra bytes bump them > over to the next alignment boundary. That's why there is such a big > difference - on average it'll be less. I think that's acceptable, > Andreas seems to think otherwise. But if the WAL size really is so > precious, we could remove the two padding bytes from XLogRecord, > instead of dedicating them for the replication ids. That would be an > even better use for them. > > > The argument to move to 4 bytes is a poor one. If it was reasonable in > terms of code or cosmetic value then all values used in the backend > would be 4 bytes. We wouldn't have any 2 byte values anywhere. But we > don't do that. > > The change does nothing useful, since I doubt anyone will ever need > >32768 nodes in their cluster. > And if they did there would be other much bigger problems than replication identifier being 16bit (it's actually >65534 as it's unsigned btw). Considering the importance and widespread use of replication I think we should really make sure the related features have small overhead. > Increasing WAL size for any non-zero amount is needlessly wasteful for a > change with only cosmetic value. But for a change that has significant > value for database resilience, it is a sensible use of bytes. > > +1 to Andres' very reasonable suggestion. Lets commit this and go home. > +1 -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: