Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Andres Freund" <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Daniel Farina" <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node
Date: 2012-06-19 22:27:32
Message-ID: 4FE0B6840200002500048725@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> Yes, thats definitely a valid use-case. But that doesn't preclude
> the other - also not uncommon - use-case where you want to have
> different master which all contain up2date data.

I agree. I was just saying that while one requires an origin_id,
the other doesn't. And those not doing MM replication definitely
don't need it.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2012-06-19 22:30:38 Re: WAL format changes
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2012-06-19 22:24:54 Re: WAL format changes