Re: Syncrep and improving latency due to WAL throttling

On 1/27/23 22:19, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2023-01-27 12:06:49 +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 4:49 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Huh? Why did you remove the GUC?
>>
>> After reading previous threads, my optimism level of getting it ever
>> in shape of being widely accepted degraded significantly (mainly due
>> to the discussion of wider category of 'WAL I/O throttling' especially
>> in async case, RPO targets in async case and potentially calculating
>> global bandwidth).
> 
> I think it's quite reasonable to limit this to a smaller scope. Particularly
> because those other goals are pretty vague but ambitious goals. IMO the
> problem with a lot of the threads is precisely that that they aimed at a level
> of generallity that isn't achievable in one step.
> 

+1 to that

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company