| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot standby and removing VACUUM FULL |
| Date: | 2009-11-25 03:26:38 |
| Message-ID: | 3386.1259119598@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Well the only thing that's been discussed is having vacuum require a
> minimum age before considering a transaction visible to all to reduce
> the chance of conflicts on cleanup records.
[ shrug... ] Call me Cassandra. I am not concerned about what has or
has not been discussed. I am concerned about what effects we are going
to be blindsided by, a few months from now when it is too late to
conveniently add a way to detect that the system is being run as an HS
master. If we design it in, perhaps we won't need it --- but if we
design it out, we will need it. You have heard of Finagle's law, no?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2009-11-25 03:31:40 | Re: Partitioning option for COPY |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-11-25 03:12:15 | Re: Hot standby and removing VACUUM FULL |