Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-07 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Florian G. Pflug wrote: Jeff Davis wrote: Are you referring to the size of the xip array being a problem? Would it help to tie the size of the xip array to max_connections? I understand that max_connections might be greater on the master, but maybe something similar? Thats what I currently

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-07 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Simon Riggs wrote: On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:11 +0200, Florian G. Pflug wrote: .) Added a new GUC operational_mode, which can be set to either readwrite or readonly. If it is set to readwrite (the default), postgres behaves as usual. All the following changes are only in effect if

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-07 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Florian G. Pflug wrote: Jeff Davis wrote: Are you referring to the size of the xip array being a problem? Would it help to tie the size of the xip array to max_connections? I understand that max_connections might be greater on the master, but maybe something similar?

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-07 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Jeff Davis wrote: On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 22:36 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: .) Transactions are assigned a dummy xid ReadOnlyTransactionId, that is considered to be later than any other xid. So you are bumping FirstNormalTransactionId up by one for this? You're assuming then that we will

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-06 Thread Matthew T. O'Connor
Florian G. Pflug wrote: Work done so far: - .) Don't start autovacuum and bgwriter. Do table stats used by the planner get replicated on a PITR slave? I assume so, but if not, you would need autovac to do analyzes. ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-06 Thread Jeff Davis
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:11 +0200, Florian G. Pflug wrote: .) Since the slaves needs to track an Snapshot in shared memory, it cannot resize that snapshot to accomodate however many concurrent transactions might have been running on the master. My current plan is to detect if

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-06 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: Florian G. Pflug wrote: Work done so far: - .) Don't start autovacuum and bgwriter. Do table stats used by the planner get replicated on a PITR slave? I assume so, but if not, you would need autovac to do analyzes. Yes - everything that get

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-06 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Jeff Davis wrote: On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:11 +0200, Florian G. Pflug wrote: .) Since the slaves needs to track an Snapshot in shared memory, it cannot resize that snapshot to accomodate however many concurrent transactions might have been running on the master. My current plan

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-06 Thread Jeff Davis
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 19:25 +0200, Florian G. Pflug wrote: Thats what I currently do - the xip array on the slave is sized to hold max_connections entries (Actually, it's max_connections + max_prepared_xacts I think). The problem occurs exactly if those values are set too small on the slave -

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-06 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 12:17 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: Florian G. Pflug wrote: Work done so far: - .) Don't start autovacuum and bgwriter. Do table stats used by the planner get replicated on a PITR slave? I assume so, but if not, you would need autovac to do

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-06 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Simon Riggs wrote: On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 12:17 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: Florian G. Pflug wrote: Work done so far: - .) Don't start autovacuum and bgwriter. Do table stats used by the planner get replicated on a PITR slave? I assume so, but if not,

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-06 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:11 +0200, Florian G. Pflug wrote: .) Added a new GUC operational_mode, which can be set to either readwrite or readonly. If it is set to readwrite (the default), postgres behaves as usual. All the following changes are only in effect if operational_mode is

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-06 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 17:14 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 12:17 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: Florian G. Pflug wrote: Work done so far: - .) Don't start autovacuum and bgwriter. Do table stats used by the

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-06 Thread Matthew T. O'Connor
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 12:17 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: Florian G. Pflug wrote: Work done so far: - .) Don't start autovacuum and bgwriter. Do table stats used by the planner get replicated on a PITR slave? I assume so, but if

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] GSoC Work on readonly queries done so far

2007-06-06 Thread Jeff Davis
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 22:36 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: .) Transactions are assigned a dummy xid ReadOnlyTransactionId, that is considered to be later than any other xid. So you are bumping FirstNormalTransactionId up by one for this? You're assuming then that we will freeze replay