| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info> |
| Subject: | Re: Replication Node Identifiers and crashsafe Apply Progress |
| Date: | 2013-11-19 17:47:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZDrV3kWGXzC5=4NwSpjWWj5UrSEqJpG0bX0nASh1p+7Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Agreed. As an alternative we could just have a single - probably longer
> than NAMEDATALEN - string to identify replication progress and rely on
> the users of the facility to build the identifier automatically
> themselves using components that are helpful in their system.
I tend to feel like a generic identifier would be better. I'm not
sure why something like a UUID wouldn't be enough, though.
Arbitrary-length identifiers will be bad for performance, and 128 bits
ought to be enough for anyone.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-11-19 17:51:28 | Re: Data corruption issues using streaming replication on 9.0.14/9.2.5/9.3.1 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-11-19 17:43:44 | Re: better atomics - v0.2 |