Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CANP8+jJXM4PVgMSBa0sy5uDni=Wa21_7hMj8J=n=UN07VqnuCQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS
on idle server
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
On 6 April 2016 at 10:09, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
--
On 2016-04-06 10:04:42 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 6 April 2016 at 09:45, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> > On 2016-04-06 09:18:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a patch
> > that
> > > does the same thing but simpler, less invasive and more maintainable.
> > > Primarily, I did that for you, to avoid you having wasted your time and
> > to
> > > allow you to backpatch a solution.
> >
> > But it doesn't. It doesn't solve the longstanding problem of checkpoints
> > needlessly being repeated due to standby snapshots.
> <sigh> I can't see why you say this. I am willing to listen, but this
> appears to be wrong.
The issue there is that we continue to issue checkpoints if the only
activity since the last checkpoint was emitting a standby
snapshot. That's because:
I agree this is the current situation in 9.4 and 9.5, hence the bug report.
This no longer occurs with the patches I have proposed. The snapshot is skipped, so a further checkpoint never triggers.
The proposed patch allows to fix that in a more principled manner,
because we can simply check that no "important" records have been
emitted since the last checkpoint, and skip if that's the case.
I understand the proposal you have made. The patch to implement it is what I object to; my comments made last Sunday.
> What issue is that? Previously you said it must not skip it at all for
> logical.
It's fine to skip the records iff nothing important has happened since
the last time a snapshot has been logged. Again, the proposed approach
allowed to detect that.
Agreed, both proposals do that.
> > We now log more WAL with
> > XLogArchiveTimeout > 0 than without.
> And the problem with that is what?
That an idle system unnecessarily produces WAL? Waking up disks and
everything?
The OP discussed a problem with archive_timeout > 0. Are you saying we should put in a fix that applies whatever the setting of archive_timeout?
Are we concerned that a master sends a small amount of data every few minutes to a standby it is connected to? I hadn't read that in the thread.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: