Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Date: 2008-05-29 15:49:54
Message-ID: 483ED0A2.7060006@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
Marko,

> But Tom's mail gave me impression core wants to wait until we get "perfect"
> read-only slave implementation so we wait with it until 8.6, which does
> not seem sensible.  If we can do slightly inefficient (but simple)
> implementation
> right now, I see no reason to reject it, we can always improve it later.

That's incorrect.  We're looking for a workable solution.  If we could 
get one for 8.4, that would be brilliant but we think it's going to be 
harder than that.

Publishing the XIDs back to the master is one possibility.  We also 
looked at using "spillover segments" for vacuumed rows, but that seemed 
even less viable.

I'm also thinking, for *async replication*, that we could simply halt 
replication on the slave whenever a transaction passes minxid on the 
master.  However, the main focus will be on synchrounous hot standby.

--Josh


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2008-05-29 15:52:48
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Memory question on win32 systems
Previous:From: Douglas McNaughtDate: 2008-05-29 15:48:25
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2008-05-29 15:53:03
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Douglas McNaughtDate: 2008-05-29 15:48:25
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group