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

Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items
Date: 2008-12-30 15:20:36
Message-ID: 495A3C44.90302@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Issues (2) and (3) would go away entirely if both standby and primary
> always had the same xmin value as a system-wide setting. i.e. the
> standby and primary are locked together at their xmins. Perhaps that was
> Heikki's intention in recent suggestions? 

No, I only suggested that as an optional optimization. We can't rely on 
it, because the queries on standby should still work correctly if the 
connection to primary is lost for some reason, or if the primary decides 
not to honor standby's xmin, perhaps to avoid the usual issues with 
long-running-transactions.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-12-30 15:31:14
Subject: Re: generic reloptions improvement
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-12-30 15:17:38
Subject: Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items

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