| From: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, hannu <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Fred&Dani&Pandora&Aquiles" <fred(at)nti(dot)ufop(dot)br>, MIchael <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallell Optimizer |
| Date: | 2013-06-13 10:16:18 |
| Message-ID: | CA+CSw_sZtzkSpTrEGunzzqHk6+C_DMiEaDqu7=NVnVq7KJT2PA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> That idea is not dependent upon CSNs.
>
> It is an option for us to implement snapshot synchronisation now, we
> just haven't done it yet.
>
> I'm currently working on exporting/importing snapshots on standbys,
> which is a precursor to that idea.
>
> None of the above is any easier/harder with CSNs, nor would it
> delay/accelerate delivery of such features.
I agree that snapshot synchronization can be done with or without
CSNs, but surely synchronizing a single monotonically increasing
number is easier than synchronizing lists of running transactions.
Regards,
Ants Aasma
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bernd Helmle | 2013-06-13 12:02:54 | Passing fdw_private data from PlanForeignScan to PlanForeignModify |
| Previous Message | Ants Aasma | 2013-06-13 10:12:54 | Re: Parallell Optimizer |