Horton
Menu

Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>, Vik Fearing <vik@2ndquadrant.fr>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-12-07T04:26:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, isn't it better to compare the performance of some algorithms and
> confirm which is the best for quorum commit? Since this code is hot, i.e.,
> can be very frequently executed, I'd like to avoid waste of cycle as much
> as possible.

It seems to me that it would be simple enough to write a script to do
that to avoid any other noise: allocate an array with N random
elements, and fetch the M-th element from it after applying a sort
method. I highly doubt that you'd see much difference with a low
number of elements, now if you scale at a thousand standbys in a
quorum set you may surely see something :*)
Anybody willing to try out?
-- 
Michael

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Set the priorities of all quorum synchronous standbys to 1.

  2. Improve documentation and comment for quorum-based sync replication.