Re: Opening a recovering DB in for read-only access?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Opening a recovering DB in for read-only access?
Date: 2008-11-21 16:53:22
Message-ID: 1227286403.7015.88.camel@hp_dx2400_1
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 15:45 +1100, Philip Warner wrote:
> Sounds somewhat evil, I know, but I was wondering if it was even
> remotely possible with the current design?
>
> The reason: we are contemplating using pg_standy to create a
> warm-standby. It would be a bonus if we would run read-only queries
> against this DB to take some of the load off or production servers.
>
> We currently use slony to provide warm-standby *and* read-only access,
> but pg_standby is a great deal more appealing...especially if there was
> some way to do read-only access at the same time.

Yes, exactly what I'm working on now, currently patch in review.

> FWIW, the data would not even need to be completely consistent ... the
> kinds of things we are looking at offloading are large summary-type
> sequential scans of big tables.

Access to inconsistent data has not been agreed. We will only allow
access to consistent data with this approach.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-11-21 17:07:34 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Silence compiler warning about ignored return value.
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2008-11-21 16:17:32 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Silence compiler warning about ignored return value.