Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqTYPzLFrp7=AESjK_Y--9K0UJq8+zR88OMvRR6rM0Ekog@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If M (i.e., number of quorum sync standbys) is enough large,
>> your choice would be good. But usually M seems not so large.
>>
>
> Thank you for the comment.
>
> One another possible idea is to use the partial selection sort[1],
> which takes O(MN) time. Since this is more efficient if N is small
> this would be better than qsort for this case. But I'm not sure that
> we can see such a difference by result of performance measurement.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_algorithm#Partial_selection_sort

We'll begin to see a minimal performance impact when selecting a sync
standby across hundreds of them, which is less than say what 0.1% (or
less) of existing deployments are doing. The current approach taken
seems simple enough to be kept, and performance is not something to
worry much IMHO.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Hash Indexes