News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Twitter was down by NKCSS on Thursday July 11, 2019 @04:12PM (#20415322)
Why not have it run against a replicated copy? I did that in the past, works amazingly, they can f* up all they want without any implications.
Re:Twitter was down by tonystubblebine on Thursday July 11, 2019 @04:29PM (#20415489)
This was 2005. We had dedicated servers in our own cage. I can't remember if we already had replicas. It seems plausible. But actually spinning up a new one would have required more work and convincing than I wanted to do.
Re:Twitter was down by AgentME on Thursday July 11, 2019 @09:13PM (#20417318)
It's probably easy to do if you know it's an issue to begin with. I've run into this scenario before (running sql queries to read data that turned out to lock everything) and it caught me by surprise. Why would a read query cause the database to lock anything? I thought databases did stuff like multiversion concurrency control to make locks like that unnecessary.
Re:Twitter was down by joevandyk on Thursday July 11, 2019 @11:20PM (#20417836)
Doing large queries on a Postgres standby had the potential to mess up the master, depending on configuration settings.