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

Re: Future In-Core Replication

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Future In-Core Replication
Date: 2012-04-27 22:21:08
Message-ID: 4F9B1BD4.8040505@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 04/27/2012 11:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Well, they all sound similar. My info was that Mammoth was not WAL-based. 
Mammoth was transaction log based but not WAL based.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2012-04-27 22:32:43
Subject: Re: Re: xReader, double-effort (was: Temporary tables under hot standby)
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2012-04-27 22:19:24
Subject: Re: xReader, double-effort

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