| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items |
| Date: | 2008-12-24 04:59:24 |
| Message-ID: | 200812232359.24699.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday 19 December 2008 19:36:42 Simon Riggs wrote:
> Perhaps we should listen to the people that have said they don't want
> queries cancelled, even if the alternative is inconsistent answers. That
> is easily possible yet is not currently an option. Plus we have the
> option I referred to up thread, which is to defer query cancel until the
> query reads a modified data block. I'm OK with implementing either of
> those, as non-default options. Do we need those options or are we ok?
>
Haven't seen any feed back on this, but I think the two options of cancel
query for replay, and pause replay for queries, are probably enough for a
first go around (especially if you can get the query canceling to work only
when changes are made to the specific database in question)
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2008-12-24 05:34:49 | Re: Synchronous replication, reading WAL for sending |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2008-12-24 04:59:19 | Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items |