| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: SSI and Hot Standby |
| Date: | 2011-01-20 23:11:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1295565090.1803.6122.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 19:05 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> The idea is that whenever we see a valid snapshot which would yield
> a truly serializable view of the data for a READ ONLY transaction,
> we add a WAL record with that snapshot information.
You haven't explained why this approach is the way forwards. What other
options have been ruled out, and why. The above approach doesn't sound
particularly viable to me.
It's not clear to me what the reason is that this doesn't just work on
HS already. If you started there it might help.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-20 23:14:57 | Re: Large object corruption during 'piped' pg_restore |
| Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2011-01-20 23:10:19 | Re: One Role, Two Passwords |