On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 12:02 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > I don't see a "substantial additional burden" there. What I would > > imagine is needed is that the slave transmits a single number back > > --- its current oldest xmin --- and the walsender process publishes > > that number as its transaction xmin in its PGPROC entry on the master. > > If the main purpose of the slave is long-running queries, though, this > could cause a lot of bloat on the master. That's a special case, but a > reason why we would want to preserve the stop replication functionality. >
Do we really think that users, using the slave to run long-running queries is a special case? One of the number one things I can see this being used for is reporting.... Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
