Josh Berkus wrote: > Marko, > > > But Tom's mail gave me impression core wants to wait until we get "perfect" > > read-only slave implementation so we wait with it until 8.6, which does > > not seem sensible. If we can do slightly inefficient (but simple) > > implementation > > right now, I see no reason to reject it, we can always improve it later. > > That's incorrect. We're looking for a workable solution. If we could > get one for 8.4, that would be brilliant but we think it's going to be > harder than that. > > Publishing the XIDs back to the master is one possibility. We also > looked at using "spillover segments" for vacuumed rows, but that seemed > even less viable. > > I'm also thinking, for *async replication*, that we could simply halt > replication on the slave whenever a transaction passes minxid on the > master. However, the main focus will be on synchrounous hot standby.
Another idea I discussed with Tom is having the slave _delay_ applying WAL files until all slave snapshots are ready. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
