On 2013-08-19 20:15:51 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > 2013-08-19 19:20 keltezéssel, Andres Freund írta: > >Hi, > > > >On 2013-07-24 09:20:52 +0200, Antonin Houska wrote: > >>Hello, > >>the purpose of this patch is to limit impact of pg_backup on running server. > >>Feedback is appreciated. > >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. Seems fine to me. Under the premise that the idea is decided to be worthwile to be integrated. Which I am not yet convinced of. > Maybe throttling the walsender is not a good idea, it can lead > to DoS via disk space shortage. Not in a measurably different way than receiver side throttling? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
