| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <antonin(dot)houska(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Backup throttling |
| Date: | 2013-08-20 06:37:54 |
| Message-ID: | 52130EC2.3000500@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19.08.2013 21:15, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> 2013-08-19 19:20 keltezéssel, Andres Freund írta:
>> Based on a quick look it seems like you're throttling on the receiving
>> side. Is that a good idea? Especially over longer latency links, TCP
>> buffering will reduce the effect on the sender side considerably.
>
> Throttling on the sender side requires extending the syntax of
> BASE_BACKUP and maybe START_REPLICATION so both can be
> throttled but throttling is still initiated by the receiver side.
Throttling in the client seems much better to me. TCP is designed to
handle a slow client.
> Maybe throttling the walsender is not a good idea, it can lead
> to DoS via disk space shortage.
If a client can initiate a backup and/or streaming replication, he can
already do much more damage than a DoS via out of disk space. And a
nothing stops even a non-privileged user from causing an out of disk
space situation anyway. IOW that's a non-issue.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2013-08-20 06:50:18 | Re: Backup throttling |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-08-20 06:28:26 | Re: ereport documentation patch |