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
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 |