RE: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrenttruncates on large tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tsunakawa, Takayuki
Subject RE: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrenttruncates on large tables
Date
Msg-id 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FA753AA@G01JPEXMBYT05
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrent truncateson large tables  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com]
> It's not clear to me whether it would be worth the overhead of doing
> something like this.

Quite frankly, not really to me, too.

> Making relation drops faster at the cost of
> making buffer cleaning slower could be a loser.

The purpose is not making relation drops faster (on the primary), but keeping failover time within 10 seconds.  I don't
reallyknow how crucial that requirement is, but I'm feeling it would be good for PostgreSQL to be able to guarantee
shorterfailover time.
 


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: Temporary tables prevent autovacuum, leading to XID wraparound
Next
From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki"
Date:
Subject: RE: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrenttruncates on large tables