Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqSyfsg=gHeqgXyzP0iGWvdyrXqnG-UENzfueaU=2m5-zg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > So, isn't it better to compare the performance of some algorithms and > confirm which is the best for quorum commit? Since this code is hot, i.e., > can be very frequently executed, I'd like to avoid waste of cycle as much > as possible. It seems to me that it would be simple enough to write a script to do that to avoid any other noise: allocate an array with N random elements, and fetch the M-th element from it after applying a sort method. I highly doubt that you'd see much difference with a low number of elements, now if you scale at a thousand standbys in a quorum set you may surely see something :*) Anybody willing to try out? -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: