Re: I'd like to discuss scaleout at PGCon
От | Ashutosh Bapat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: I'd like to discuss scaleout at PGCon |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFjFpRcVCFuEBxdHuxq1DpjNktN4s0ZC8UfYBO8-BxDTcCzdPg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: I'd like to discuss scaleout at PGCon (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: I'd like to discuss scaleout at PGCon
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 2:00 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > In XL, GTM is a singe component managing transaction ids. That has a > standby, so is not a SPOF. > > But that is not what I mean. I don't believe that a GTM-style > component is necessary in a future in-core scalablility solution. > I agree. I think, a distributed algorithm, which does not need a single GTM-style node, would be better. That automatically provides high availability without configuring a standby. > Each incoming query needs to be planned and executed from one > coordinator component, then the work performed across many workers on > different nodes (or just one). Each node need to be confiugred and maintained. That requires efforts. So we need to keep the number of nodes to a minimum. With a coordinator and worker node segregation, we require at least two nodes in a cluster and just that configuration doesn't provide much scalability. With each node functioning as coordinator (facing clients) and worker (facing other coordinators) keeps the number of nodes to a minimum. It is good for HA. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: