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

From: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node
Date: 2012-06-20 19:41:03
Message-ID: CAC_2qU9BoHem_hzJH_XHXcUK3CreAY5zcEcgKYbt9_AfZD4siw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

>> OK, so in this case, I still don't see how the "origin_id" is even enough.
>>
>> C applies the change originally from A (routed through B, because it's
>> faster).  But when it get's the change directly from A, how does it
>> know to *not* apply it again?
> The lsn of the change.

So why isn't the LSN good enough for when C propagates the change back to A?

Why does A need more information than C?

a.

--
Aidan Van Dyk                                             Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca                                       command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/                                   work like a slave.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2012-06-20 19:42:20 Re: WAL format changes
Previous Message Andres Freund 2012-06-20 19:39:02 Re: Event Triggers reduced, v1