From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Global Sequences |
Date: | 2012-10-16 06:44:54 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJaEQtedAnrEmEGzCqc2jhztcAg=vLd8fmP-WonWjVRkQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16 October 2012 03:03, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> There's a necessary trade-off; you can either have it globally
> *strongly* ordered, and, if so, you'll have to pay a hefty
> coordination price, or you can have the cheaper answer of a weakly
> ordered sequence. The latter leaves me feeling rather "meh."
Oracle allows you to define whether you want ORDER or not for a
sequence when used in clustered mode.
Requesting a sequence to be strongly ordered across a generic
distributed system is very much like asking performance=none and
high_availability=off, which is why I didn't suggest it. So you're
right about the "hefty coordination price" but our conclusions differ
because of our understanding of that price.
I don't think it makes sense to spend the time implementing that option.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yeb Havinga | 2012-10-16 07:33:39 | Re: Global Sequences |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-10-16 03:49:57 | Re: Deprecating Hash Indexes |