Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 12:31 +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But since you mention it: one of the plausible answers for fixing the
vacuum problem for read-only slaves is to have the slaves push an xmin
back upstream to the master to prevent premature vacuuming.
I think it would be best to not make the slave interfere with the
master's operations; that's only going to increase the operational
complexity of such a solution.
We ruled that out as the-only-solution a while back. It does have the
beauty of simplicity, so it may exist as an option or possibly the only
way, for 8.4.
Yeah. The point is that it's fairly clear that we could make that work.
A solution that doesn't impact the master at all would be nicer, but
it's not at all clear to me that one is possible, unless we abandon
WAL-shipping as the base technology.
Quite. Before we start ruling things out let's know what we think we can
actually do.
I hope that NTT will release their code ASAP so we will have a better
idea of what we have and what we need.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
