| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Hot standby |
| Date: | 2008-11-28 16:44:36 |
| Message-ID: | 26861.1227890676@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 11:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The sinval queue is an *utterly* inappropriate
>> mechanism for such a thing.
> To be honest, it did seem quite a neat solution. Any particular
> direction of thought you'd like me to pursue instead?
I hadn't been following the discussion closely enough to know what the
problem is. But "cancel the current transaction" is far outside the
bounds of what sinval events are supposed to do. If you try to do that
we'll forever be fighting bugs in code that expected
AcceptInvalidationMessages to do no more than invalidate cache entries.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-28 16:49:17 | Re: Distinct types |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-11-28 16:38:45 | Re: Distinct types |