Re: Backup throttling
От | Benedikt Grundmann |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Backup throttling |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADbMkNMnaRZ_WNQDF3PSBqSGYg4O_k5y2fgajp-NSuPu_pr93w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Backup throttling (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Heikki LinnakangasOther people have already offered some good points in this area, but
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> Throttling in the client seems much better to me. TCP is designed to handle
> a slow client.
let me just add one thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet.
We have a *general* need to be able to throttle server-side resource
utilization, particularly I/O. This is a problem not only for
pg_basebackup, but for COPY, CLUSTER, VACUUM, and even things like
UPDATE. Of all of those, the only one for which we currently have any
kind of a solution is VACUUM. Now, maybe pg_basebackup also needs its
own special-purpose solution, but I think we'd do well to consider a
general I/O rate-limiting strategy and then consider particular needs
in the light of that framework. In that context, server-side seems
better to me, because something like CLUSTER isn't going to produce
anything that the client can effectively limit.
+1 it is very easy at the moment to for example run a manual vacuum full/cluster against a big table and generate WAL so quickly that the hot standby disconnects because it gets "too far behind".
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: