On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 12:02 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > I don't see a "substantial additional burden" there. What I would
> > imagine is needed is that the slave transmits a single number back
> > --- its current oldest xmin --- and the walsender process publishes
> > that number as its transaction xmin in its PGPROC entry on the master.
> If the main purpose of the slave is long-running queries, though, this
> could cause a lot of bloat on the master. That's a special case, but a
> reason why we would want to preserve the stop replication functionality.
Do we really think that users, using the slave to run long-running
queries is a special case? One of the number one things I can see this
being used for is reporting....
Joshua D. Drake
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Aidan Van Dyk||Date: 2010-02-26 20:25:33|
|Subject: Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and StreamingReplication integration|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-26 20:21:05|
|Subject: Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration |