| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node |
| Date: | 2012-06-19 06:03:04 |
| Message-ID: | 4571.1340085784@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:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 11:51:27 PM Daniel Farina wrote:
>> What's the cost of going a lot higher? Because if one makes enough
>> numerical space available, one can assign node identities without a
>> coordinator, a massive decrease in complexity.
> It would increase the size of every wal record. We just have 16bit left there
> by chance...
"Every WAL record"? Why in heck would you attach it to every record?
Surely putting it in WAL page headers would be sufficient. We could
easily afford to burn a page switch (if not a whole segment switch)
when changing masters.
I'm against the idea of eating any spare space we have in WAL record
headers for this purpose, anyway; there are likely to be more pressing
needs in future.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-06-19 06:09:41 | Re: Resource Owner reassign Locks |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-06-19 06:02:50 | Re: Resource Owner reassign Locks |