On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 12:25 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 3. Ignore problem > > Effects: > > * Long running queries on standby... > > Have no effect on primary > > Do not delay apply of WAL records on standby > > * Queries on standby give inconsistent answers in some cases, though > > doesn't generate any messages to show inconsistency occurred. Acceptable > > for read-only and insert only tables only. > > This seems like a non-starter.
It works, and is proposed as a non-default option since a number of people have independently said to me that this would be acceptable/preferred. > Your comment about read-only and insert-only tuples only seems to make sense > if you assume there are other tables being updated simultaneously. Otherwise > of course there would be no WAL records for tuple removals. Yeh, you got it. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
