Re: Proposal for a cascaded master-slave replication system

From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for a cascaded master-slave replication system
Date: 2003-11-13 15:01:07
Message-ID: 20031113150107.GF25144@libertyrms.info
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:38:53PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> In the last exciting episode, JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com (Jan Wieck) wrote:
> > I look forward to your comments.
>
> It is not evident from the paper what approach is taken to dealing
> with the duplicate key conflicts.
>
> The example:
>
> UPDATE table SET col1 = 'temp' where col = 'A';
> UPDATE table SET col1 = 'A' where col = 'B';
> UPDATE table SET col1 = 'B' where col = 'temp';

It's not a problem, because as the proposal states, the actual SQL is
to be sent in order to the slave. That is, only consistent sets are
sent: you can't have a condition on the slave that never could have
obtained on the master. This means greater overhead for cases where
the same row is altered repeatedly, but it's safe.

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2003-11-13 15:03:54 Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for a cascaded master-slave replication system
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-11-13 14:58:33 Re: RHEL

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2003-11-13 15:03:54 Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for a cascaded master-slave replication system
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2003-11-13 14:59:41 Re: ALTER TABLE modifications