Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 13:06 -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 01:29:55PM +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
>>> Agreed. Just a minor note: I find "marked read-only" too strong, as it
>>> implies an impossibility to write. I propose speaking about mostly-read
>>> segments, or optimized for reading or similar.
Hm.. yeah, after rereading, I realize that I've mixed up states no. 2
and 3 here, sorry.
>> I do want some segments to be _marked_ read-only: I want attempted writes to
>> them to _fail_.
Well, I can see use cases for marking tuples or complete relations as
read only. But segments?
I'm still puzzled about how a DBA is expected to figure out which
segments to mark. Simon, are you assuming we are going to pass on
segment numbers to the DBA one day?
If not, a more user friendly command like "MARK READ ONLY WHERE date <=
2006" would have to move tuples around between segments, so as to be
able to satisfy the split point exactly, right?
> I think Markus thought that we would mark them read only automatically,
> which was not my intention. I believe its possible to have this in a way
> that will make you both happy. Some more explanation:
> There would be three different states for a segment:
> 1. read write
> 2. "optimized for reading", as Markus says it
> 3. marked read only by explicit command
Thanks for clarification.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2008-01-04 21:40:45|
|Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2008-01-04 20:08:07|
|Subject: Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets|