| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |
| Date: | 2009-02-03 13:50:28 |
| Message-ID: | 87zlh3iq8r.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> writes:
> Actually we came up with a solution to this - use filesystem level
> snapshots (like LVM2+XFS or ZFS), and redirect backends with
> long-running queries to use fs snapshot mounted to a different
> mountpoint.
Uhm, how do you determine which snapshot to direct the backend to? There could
have been several generations of tuples in that tid since your query started.
Do you take a snapshot every time there's a vacuum-snapshot conflict and
record which snapshot goes with that snapshot?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-02-03 14:14:16 | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-02-03 13:40:56 | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |