| From: | Harold Giménez <harold(dot)gimenez(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Date: | 2013-06-06 06:25:55 |
| Message-ID: | CABQCq-Ti1QJacYKacgNCgFfQf2MAKgfDsN-W4YG-sy0Dq2O6Zg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>wrote:
>
> On 6/5/2013 10:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>
>
> Instead of "running out of disk space PANIC" we should just write to an
> emergency location within PGDATA
This merely buys you some time, but with aggressive and sustained write
throughput you are left on the same spot. Practically speaking it's the
same situation as increasing the pg_xlog disk space.
> and log very loudly that the SA isn't paying attention. Perhaps if that
> area starts to get to an unhappy place we immediately bounce into read-only
> mode and log even more loudly that the SA should be fired. I would think
> read-only mode is safer and more polite than an PANIC crash.
>
I agree it is better than PANIC, but read-only mode is definitely also a
form of throttling; a much more abrupt and unfriendly one if I may add.
Regards,
-Harold
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2013-06-06 06:28:49 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2013-06-06 06:09:51 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |