Re: Why we lost Uber as a user - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
Date
Msg-id 20160803133307.GA13027@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why we lost Uber as a user  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug  2, 2016 at 10:33:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I saw from the Uber article that they weren't going to per-row logical
> replication but _statement_ replication, which is very hard to do
> because typical SQL doesn't record what concurrent transactions
> committed before a new statement's transaction snapshot is taken, and
> doesn't record lock order for row updates blocked by concurrent activity
> --- both of which affect the final result from the query.
> 
> So, for statement replication, it is not a question of whether the code
> has bugs, but that the replay is not 100% possible in all cases, unless
> you switch to some statement-row-lock hybrid ability.

Oh, and one more problem with statement-level replication is that the
overhead of statement replay is high, as high as it was on the master. 
That leaves minimal server resources left to handle read-only workloads
on the slave.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+                     Ancient Roman grave inscription +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joshua Bay
Date:
Subject: Way to access LSN (for each transaction) by directly talking to postgres?
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Detecting skipped data from logical slots (data silently skipped)