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

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Date
Msg-id CAHGQGwFcEhv8BPP0HV2VQ8kXaHQmfN7PFAgkKsPyVip0frizpg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do we need to consider the sorting method and the selecting k-th
>> latest LSN method?
>
> Honestly, nah. Tests are showing that there are many more bottlenecks
> before that with just memory allocation and parsing.

I think that it's worth prototyping alternative algorithm, and
measuring the performances of those alternative and current
algorithms. This measurement should check not only the bottleneck
but also how much each algorithm increases the time that backends
need to wait for before they receive ack from walsender.

If it's reported that current algorithm is enough "effecient",
we can just leave the code as it is. OTOH, if not, let's adopt
the alternative one.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgstattuple documentation clarification