Re: [RFC] CREATE QUEUE (log-only table) for londiste/pgQ ccompatibility

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] CREATE QUEUE (log-only table) for londiste/pgQ ccompatibility
Date: 2012-10-23 14:13:50
Message-ID: 17539.1351001630@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

[ hadn't been following this thread, sorry ]

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> My RFC was for a proposal to skip writing the unneeded info in local
> tables and put it _only_ in WAL.

This concept seems fundamentally broken. What will happen if the master
crashes immediately after emitting the WAL record? It will replay it
locally, that's what, and thus you have uncertainty about whether the
master will contain the data or not.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-10-23 14:18:48 Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-10-23 14:07:13 Re: Visual Studio 2012 RC