| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: SSI and Hot Standby |
| Date: | 2011-01-20 23:37:01 |
| Message-ID: | 23698.1295566621@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 19:05 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> The idea is that whenever we see a valid snapshot which would yield
>> a truly serializable view of the data for a READ ONLY transaction,
>> we add a WAL record with that snapshot information.
> You haven't explained why this approach is the way forwards. What other
> options have been ruled out, and why. The above approach doesn't sound
> particularly viable to me.
I'm pretty concerned about the performance implications, too. In
particular that sounds like you could get an unbounded amount of WAL
emitted from a *purely read only* transaction flow. Which is not
going to fly.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-01-21 00:11:26 | JSON data type status? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-20 23:34:35 | Re: One Role, Two Passwords |