| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items |
| Date: | 2008-12-19 15:34:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1229700896.4793.544.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 09:22 -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> I'm confused shouldn't read-only transactions on the slave just be
> hacked to not set any hint bits including lp_delete?
They could be, though I see no value in doing so.
But that is not Heikki's point. He is discussing what happens on the
primary and the effects that must then occur on the standby. He has
rightly pointed out a (pluggable) hole in my logic.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-12-19 16:06:45 | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1324) |
| Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2008-12-19 15:23:06 | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1324) |