Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqTYPzLFrp7=AESjK_Y--9K0UJq8+zR88OMvRR6rM0Ekog@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: >> If M (i.e., number of quorum sync standbys) is enough large, >> your choice would be good. But usually M seems not so large. >> > > Thank you for the comment. > > One another possible idea is to use the partial selection sort[1], > which takes O(MN) time. Since this is more efficient if N is small > this would be better than qsort for this case. But I'm not sure that > we can see such a difference by result of performance measurement. > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_algorithm#Partial_selection_sort We'll begin to see a minimal performance impact when selecting a sync standby across hundreds of them, which is less than say what 0.1% (or less) of existing deployments are doing. The current approach taken seems simple enough to be kept, and performance is not something to worry much IMHO. -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: