On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Jeff Davis
<pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 16:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> It would be far better if we could decouple master cleanup from
> >> standby cleanup, so that only the machine that actually has the old
> >> query gets bloated. However, no one seems excited about writing that
> >> code.
> >
> > That doesn't seem just a matter of code, it seems like a major design
> > conflict.
>
> Yes. I had the idea of trying to fix this by allowing the standby to
> retain old versions of entire pages that got cleaned up on the master,
> until the transactions that might want to read the old pages were
> gone. But that may be prohibitively difficult, not sure.
I think you'd end up having a notion of a snapshot of block information
(like a FS with snapshots) inside of postgres.
Sounds like a lot of complexity to me, and the only benefit I see is
moving bloat from the primary to the standby. Granted, that would be
nice, but I would expect some costs aside from just the complexity.
I had this idea when HS was being initially implemented, and I saw two problems with it.
.) Identifying block versions in buffers. Our XID based MVCC like scheme would work, but we already have a block header which we would want to trim.
.) Effectively every block cleanup will have to create a copy of the block because more often than not there's at least one transaction in the system, and when it asks, we need to hand it the old version.
Regards,
--
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.comsingh.gurjeet@{ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet
Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
