Re: Backup throttling
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>,
Antonin Houska <antonin.houska@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2013-08-20T06:37:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 19.08.2013 21:15, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > 2013-08-19 19:20 keltezéssel, Andres Freund írta: >> 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. Throttling in the client seems much better to me. TCP is designed to handle a slow client. > Maybe throttling the walsender is not a good idea, it can lead > to DoS via disk space shortage. If a client can initiate a backup and/or streaming replication, he can already do much more damage than a DoS via out of disk space. And a nothing stops even a non-privileged user from causing an out of disk space situation anyway. IOW that's a non-issue. - Heikki