| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, eg(at)cybertec(dot)at |
| Subject: | Re: Constant WAL replay |
| Date: | 2005-04-25 01:18:13 |
| Message-ID: | 200504250118.j3P1IDq14997@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>
> >>Very close. We don't use the WAL (yet, slated for probably 8.1) but we
> >>do use a transaction log shipping method. So the implementation is
> >>almost the same.
> >
> >
> > Can you run queries on the slave? If so, how do you handle xid collisions?
>
> You can run any query that does not modify data on a replicated table.
> You can run any non data modifying query on any of the tables.
So, do you modify the slave to prevent it from grabbing an xid?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-25 01:45:17 | Re: idea for concurrent seqscans |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-04-25 00:06:00 | Re: Constant WAL replay |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-04-25 01:39:59 | Re: revise a comment in CreateCheckPoint() |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-04-25 00:06:00 | Re: Constant WAL replay |