Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008, Heikki Linnakangas a écrit : > Well, yes, but you can fall behind indefinitely that way. Imagine that > each transaction on the slave lasts, say 10 minutes, with a new > transaction starting every 5 minutes. On the master, there's a table > that's being vacuumed (or HOT-updated) frequently, say after each > transaction for simplicity. What can happen is that every transaction > that finishes on the slave will only let the WAL replay advance by one > XID before blocking on the snapshot of the next slave transaction. The > WAL replay will advance at a rate of 0.2 TPM, while the master is > generating 1.0 TPM.
What would forbid the slave to choose to replay all currently lagging WALs each time it's given the choice to advance a little? -- dim
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
