| From: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: hot standby documentation |
| Date: | 2010-06-22 23:04:03 |
| Message-ID: | 4c214166.0134e70a.3dcb.7f43@mx.google.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 02:24:55PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> - Queries executed on the standby will be correct with regard to the transactions
> >> - that had been recovered at the start of the query, or start of first statement
> >> - in the case of serializable transactions. In comparison with the primary,
> >> - the standby returns query results that could have been obtained on the primary
> >> - at some moment in the past.
> >> + Queries executed on the standby will see a view of the database that
> >> + existed on the master at some moment in the past.
> >
> > Is it really that non-deterministic? /me admits not having followed that
> > discussion. Although the original version is pretty complex, it gives the user
> > some feel for the particular moment in the past that their snapshot will
> > represent. If the original is incorrect, it would be nice to replace it with
> > something that doesn't suggest the user might end up with a snapshot from last
> > week.
>
> I had another go at this.
Much better, IMO.
--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-06-22 23:07:54 | Re: INTEGER range ("-2147483648" is not accepted.) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-22 18:24:55 | Re: hot standby documentation |