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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2008-05-29 15:53:03 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Douglas McNaught | 2008-05-29 15:48:25 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2008-05-29 15:52:48 | Re: [PERFORM] Memory question on win32 systems |
Previous Message | Douglas McNaught | 2008-05-29 15:48:25 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |