On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 02:24:55PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> - Queries executed on the standby will be correct with regard to the transactions
> >> - that had been recovered at the start of the query, or start of first statement
> >> - in the case of serializable transactions. In comparison with the primary,
> >> - the standby returns query results that could have been obtained on the primary
> >> - at some moment in the past.
> >> + Queries executed on the standby will see a view of the database that
> >> + existed on the master at some moment in the past.
> > Is it really that non-deterministic? /me admits not having followed that
> > discussion. Although the original version is pretty complex, it gives the user
> > some feel for the particular moment in the past that their snapshot will
> > represent. If the original is incorrect, it would be nice to replace it with
> > something that doesn't suggest the user might end up with a snapshot from last
> > week.
> I had another go at this.
Much better, IMO.
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2010-06-22 23:07:54|
|Subject: Re: INTEGER range ("-2147483648" is not accepted.)|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-06-22 18:24:55|
|Subject: Re: hot standby documentation|