Re: One last Slony question (was Re: Slightly OT.)

Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 06/01/07 17:31, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:23:44AM +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote:
>>> Could you not (I ask naively) detect the first DDL statement is
>>> submitted in a transaction
>>
>> Maybe.
>>
>>> on the master, then start a transaction on
>>> each slave, then funnel this and all subsequent statements
>>> synchronously to every nodes, then prepare and commit everyone?
>>
>> You could if 2PC was ubiquitous, which is certainly wasn't when the
>> code was designed (remember, it was originally compatible all the way
>> back to 7.3). Some people suggested using 2PC "if it's there", but
>> that just seems to me to be asking for really painful problems. It
>> also entails that all DDL has to happen on every node at the same
>> time, which imposes a bottleneck not actually currently in the
>> system.
>
> Since DDL is infrequent, is that bottleneck an acceptable trade-off?

Define infrequent? I have customers that do it, everyday in prod. They
do it willingly and refuse to change that habit.

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/