On 2/26/10 10:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think that what we are going to have to do before we can ship 9.0
> is rip all of that stuff out and replace it with the sort of closed-loop
> synchronization Greg Smith is pushing. It will probably be several
> months before everyone is forced to accept that, which is why 9.0 is
> not going to ship this year.
I don't think that publishing visibility info back to the master ... and
subsequently burdening the master substantially for each additional
slave ... are what most users want. Certainly for use cases like NTT's,
it is, but not for most of our users.
In fact, I seem to remember specifically discussing the approach of
trying to publish snapshots back to the master, and rejecting it on this
list during the development of SR.
Does anyone know how Oracle solves these issues? Does their structure
(separate rollback log) make it easier for them?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-02-26 19:14:06|
|Subject: Re: Assertion failure twophase.c (testing HS/SR)|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-26 19:05:52|
|Subject: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |