Re: On-the-fly index tuple deletion vs. hot_standby

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: On-the-fly index tuple deletion vs. hot_standby
Date: 2011-06-13 15:16:06
Message-ID: BANLkTi=cuyzRpDN-z5o-UTVZYkOO6iMYyw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> I fully agree.  That said, if this works on the standby, we may as well also use
>> it opportunistically on the master, to throttle bloat.
>
> As long as the performance cost is de minimis, I agree.
>
>>> At any rate, if taking a cleanup lock on the right-linked page on the
>>> standby is sufficient to fix the problem, that seems like a far
>>> superior solution in any case.  Presumably the frequency of someone
>>> having a pin on that particular page will be far lower than any
>>> matching based on XID or heavyweight locks.  And the vast majority of
>>> such pins should disappear before the startup process feels obliged to
>>> get out its big hammer.
>>
>> Yep; looks promising.
>>
>> Does such a thing have a chance of being backpatchable?  I think the chances
>> start slim and fall almost to zero on account of the difficulty of avoiding a
>> WAL format change.
>
> I can't see back-patching it.  Maybe people would feel it was worth
> considering if we were getting legions of complaints about this
> problem, but so far you're the only one.  In any case, back-patching a
> WAL format change is a complete non-starter -- we can't go making
> minor versions non-interoperable.
>
>> Assuming that conclusion, I do think it's worth starting
>> with something simple, even if it means additional bloat on the master in the
>> wal_level=hot_standby + vacuum_defer_cleanup_age / hot_standby_feedback case.
>> In choosing those settings, the administrator has taken constructive steps to
>> accept master-side bloat in exchange for delaying recovery conflict.  What's
>> your opinion?
>
> I'm pretty disinclined to go tinkering with 9.1 at this point, too.

Not least because a feature already exists in 9.1 to cope with this
problem: hot standby feedback.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2011-06-13 15:20:55 Re: procpid?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-06-13 15:09:36 Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values''