Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node
От | Daniel Farina |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAAZKuFYeu7vZDe9QBy3yaQvW3XqqbPSqV_aV+DuwYmhjMkmeaw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> * Size of field. 16 bits is enough for 32,000 master nodes, which is >> quite a lot. Do we need that many? I think we may have need for a few >> flag bits, so I'd like to reserve at least 4 bits for flag bits, maybe >> 8 bits. Even if we don't need them in this release, I'd like to have >> them. If they remain unused after a few releases, we may choose to >> redeploy some of them as additional nodeids in future. I don't foresee >> complaints that 256 master nodes is too few anytime soon, so we can >> defer that decision. > I wished we had some flag bits available before as well. I find 256 nodes a > pretty low value to start with though, 4096 sounds better though, so I would > be happy with 4 flag bits. I think for cascading setups and such you want to > add node ids for every node, not only masters... > > Any opinions from others on this? What's the cost of going a lot higher? Because if one makes enough numerical space available, one can assign node identities without a coordinator, a massive decrease in complexity. -- fdr
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: