public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Clay Jackson (cjackson) <[email protected]>
To: Jacob Biesinger <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: serializable master and non-serializable hot standby: feasible set up?
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 03:32:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CO1PR19MB498475E00A86044B340A0B399B462@CO1PR19MB4984.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHYXj6eE0jMyeM-c-szjzDLVB6WSD=bYH3KiCgZ2s8f3Z_HV9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHYXj6eE0jMyeM-c-szjzDLVB6WSD=bYH3KiCgZ2s8f3Z_HV9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Just out of curiosity, what's the use case for this?
Clay Jackson
Database Solutions Sales Engineer
[cid:[email protected]]<https://www.quest.com/solutions/database-performance-monitoring/;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
office 949-754-1203 mobile 425-802-9603
From: Jacob Biesinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 4:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: serializable master and non-serializable hot standby: feasible set up?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Howdy!
I've been going back and forth with the GCP CloudSQL engineering team about the feasibility of a particular setup, and I'm pinging the list here hoping for a sanity check. They assure me that it's impossible and I think they must be mistaken, but I have limited experience administrating my own postgres instances. So I'm appealing to a higher authority :)
The docs outline[1<https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/hot-standby.html;][2<https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/applevel-consistency.html#SERIALIZABLE-CONSISTENCY;] that a hot standby / replica with the flag `default_transaction_isolation='serializable'` is going to cause issues -- while you can connect to such an instance, basically every query against it will fail.
But! If you can somehow manage to get the replica's flags to instead use `repeatable read` or `read committed` isolation, everything seems to work well, even if the master uses `serializable` isolation. In GCP, we are having to temporarily swap the master to a lower isolation level, then stand up the replica and pin the lower isolation level flag, and then finally revert the flag change on the master. If the replica goes down, we have to repeat this process and it's a pain (not to mention data issues since our app relies on this isolation level instead of doing explicit locking in most cases).
So I know this is an awkward question to post here, but as postgres admin professionals, *would you* expect to be able to stand up a `repeatable read` replica against a `serializable` master? My expectation is that you'd simply change the setting in a .conf file on the replica and be good to go; is there something that would make this process really difficult / impossible?
Thanks so much!
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/hot-standby.html
[2]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/applevel-consistency.html#SERIALIZABLE-CONSISTENCY
--
Jake Biesinger
Attachments:
[image/jpeg] image001.jpg (38.5K, 3-image001.jpg)
download | view image
view thread (4+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: RE: serializable master and non-serializable hot standby: feasible set up?
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR19MB498475E00A86044B340A0B399B462@CO1PR19MB4984.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox