Re: Backup throttling
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
Cc: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>,
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>,
Antonin Houska <antonin.houska@gmail.com>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-08-27T11:58:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote: > Throttling in the client seems much better to me. TCP is designed to handle > a slow client. Other people have already offered some good points in this area, but let me just add one thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet. We have a *general* need to be able to throttle server-side resource utilization, particularly I/O. This is a problem not only for pg_basebackup, but for COPY, CLUSTER, VACUUM, and even things like UPDATE. Of all of those, the only one for which we currently have any kind of a solution is VACUUM. Now, maybe pg_basebackup also needs its own special-purpose solution, but I think we'd do well to consider a general I/O rate-limiting strategy and then consider particular needs in the light of that framework. In that context, server-side seems better to me, because something like CLUSTER isn't going to produce anything that the client can effectively limit. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company