| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Global Sequences |
| Date: | 2012-10-16 02:08:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20121016020801.GR29165@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Christopher Browne (cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> There's a necessary trade-off; you can either have it globally
> *strongly* ordered, and, if so, you'll have to pay a hefty
> coordination price, or you can have the cheaper answer of a weakly
> ordered sequence. The latter leaves me feeling rather "meh."
If all the systems involved are local to the system giving out the
sequences, ala PG-XC's GTM, I don't believe it's really all *that*
expensive..
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-10-16 03:49:57 | Re: Deprecating Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2012-10-16 02:03:40 | Re: Global Sequences |