| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2008-06-10 01:50:58 |
| Message-ID: | 5164.1213062658@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>> There could be multiple slaves following a master, some serving
> For the slave to not interfere with the master at all, we would need to
> delay application of WAL files on each slave until visibility on that
> slave allows the WAL to be applied, but in that case we would have
> long-running transactions delay data visibility of all slave sessions.
Right, but you could segregate out long-running queries to one slave
server that could be further behind than the others.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-10 01:55:31 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-06-10 01:49:52 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-10 01:55:31 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-06-10 01:49:52 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |