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

Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration
Date: 2010-02-26 20:02:08
Message-ID: 4B8828C0.7030501@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> I don't see a "substantial additional burden" there.  What I would
> imagine is needed is that the slave transmits a single number back
> --- its current oldest xmin --- and the walsender process publishes
> that number as its transaction xmin in its PGPROC entry on the master.

If the main purpose of the slave is long-running queries, though, this
could cause a lot of bloat on the master.  That's a special case, but a
reason why we would want to preserve the stop replication functionality.

> I don't doubt that this approach will have its own gotchas that we
> find as we get into it.  But it looks soluble.  I have no faith in
> either the correctness or the usability of the approach currently
> being pursued.

So, why not start working on it now, instead of arguing about it?  It'll
be easy to prove the approach once we have some test code.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2010-02-26 20:02:40
Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2010-02-26 19:59:57
Subject: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables

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