Re: WAL Rate Limiting

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL Rate Limiting
Date: 2014-01-16 15:35:20
Message-ID: 27195.1389886520@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I don't really see much difficulty in determining what's a utility
> command and what not for the purpose of this? All utility commands which
> create WAL in O(table_size) or worse.

By that definition, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE can all be "utility
commands". So would a full-table-scan SELECT, if it's unfortunate
enough to run into a lot of hint-setting or HOT-pruning work.

I think possibly a more productive approach to this would be to treat
it as a session-level GUC setting, rather than hard-wiring it to affect
certain commands and not others.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-01-16 15:39:11 Re: WAL Rate Limiting
Previous Message Christian Kruse 2014-01-16 15:32:56 Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it