Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hot Standby: Caches and Locks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot Standby: Caches and Locks
Date: 2008-10-30 13:21:46
Message-ID: 10895.1225372906@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What about using the existing
>> syscache logic to re-derive inval information from watching the update
>> operations?

> That does sound possible, but it makes some big assumptions about
> transactional machinery being in place. It ain't. Subtransactions make
> everything about 5 times more difficult, so it seems pretty scary to me.

Um.  Yeah, subtransactions would be a PITA.  Never mind that then ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-10-30 13:29:33
Subject: Re: Optimizing COPY
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-10-30 13:18:06
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group