Re: Re: xReader, double-effort (was: Temporary tables under hot standby)
От | Aakash Goel |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: xReader, double-effort (was: Temporary tables under hot standby) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAAEmBAC8x9WYs-cpnSU8NJCfU1duJgMk7x_qYNHuCjbwTS=AYA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: xReader, double-effort (was: Temporary tables under hot standby) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
<div class="gmail_extra">Hello Tom,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><span style="style">> I'm not sure I</span><brstyle="style" /><span style="style">> get the point of logical replication that requires a physical replicaas</span><br style="style" /><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="style">> a prerequisite.</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra">> It would be enormously<br />> more performant for the masterto be emitting logical replication<br /> > records to start with, since it already has all the right names etc<br/>> at hand at basically no cost.<br /></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">I wantto emphasize that any system which uses the logical reader setup, including a replication system, tends to be very computationallyintensive on the database which it queries all so often. In most of the environments, the source databaseis the main database, and as such, any performance degradation on this database is very bad.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra">On the other hand, if we offload almost all the work to the physicalreplica, our source database, which is the main database, still functions at the same throughput.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra">Thus, at the cost of having the replication system as a whole runa little slower than it could if it were using the main database, we have made sure that our performance critical mainsource database is not affected in performance at all.</div>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: