Re: Standbys which don't synch to disk? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Standbys which don't synch to disk?
Date
Msg-id BANLkTikSFLcjx628d17ETTANqJYdPUPofg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Standbys which don't synch to disk?  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: Standbys which don't synch to disk?  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> For 9.1, both master and replica in a sync replication relationship are
> required to be fsync'ing to disk.  I understand why we had to do that
> for our first cut at synch rep.  Do you think, though, that it might
> become possible to replicate without synch-to-disk for 9.2?
>
> The use case I have is cloud hosting, where I'd rather have two or three
> synchronous standbys than synch to disk.

It's already possible to set fsync=off on the standby if you want.  If
there is an OS-level crash you'll need to rebuild the standby, but in
some cases that may be acceptable.

And Simon has already written a patch to add a "receive" mode to sync
rep, which I expected will get committed to 9.2.  In that mode, the
standby can acknowledge the WAL records as soon as they are received,
and write them to disk just after.  I think we do need some
benchmarking there, to figure out whether any changes to the timing of
replies are needed in that case.  But the basic principal seems sound.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Standbys which don't synch to disk?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: potential bug in trigger with boolean params