Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: "Peter Darley" <pdarley(at)kinesis-cem(dot)com>
Cc: "Tatsuo Ishii" <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com, jd(at)www(dot)commandprompt(dot)com, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, herve(at)elma(dot)fr, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
Date: 2005-01-22 00:34:39
Message-ID: 200501211634.39560.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Peter, Tatsuo:

would happen with SELECT queries that, through a function or some
> other mechanism, updates data in the database? Would those need to be
> passed to pgpool in some special way?

Oh, yes, that reminds me. It would be helpful if pgPool accepted a control
string ... perhaps one in a SQL comment ... which indicated that the
statement to follow was, despite appearances, an update. For example:
--STATEMENT_IS_UPDATE\n

The alternative is, of course, that pgPool direct all explicit transactions to
the master ... which is a good idea anyway. So you could do:

BEGIN;
SELECT some_update_function();
COMMIT;

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ioannis Theoharis 2005-01-22 01:09:28 Re: inheritance performance
Previous Message Kevin Brown 2005-01-21 23:23:30 Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft