| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration |
| Date: | 2010-02-26 20:22:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1267215776.11463.13.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 12:02 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > I don't see a "substantial additional burden" there. What I would
> > imagine is needed is that the slave transmits a single number back
> > --- its current oldest xmin --- and the walsender process publishes
> > that number as its transaction xmin in its PGPROC entry on the master.
>
> If the main purpose of the slave is long-running queries, though, this
> could cause a lot of bloat on the master. That's a special case, but a
> reason why we would want to preserve the stop replication functionality.
>
Do we really think that users, using the slave to run long-running
queries is a special case? One of the number one things I can see this
being used for is reporting....
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2010-02-26 20:25:33 | Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-26 20:21:05 | Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration |