2013-08-19 21:11 keltezéssel, Andres Freund írta:
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?
No, but that's not what I meant.
START_BACKUP has to deal with big data but it finishes after some time.
But pg_receivexlog may sit there indefinitely...
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
