On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 13:03 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 12:40 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> > I agree that #4 should be done last, but it will be needed, not in the > >> > least by your employer ;-) . I don't see any obvious way to make #4 > >> > compatible with any significant query load on the slave, but in general > >> > I'd think that users of #4 are far more concerned with 0% data loss than > >> > they are with getting the slave to run read queries. > >> > >> Since #2 and #3 are enough for 0% data loss, I think that such users > >> would be more concerned about what results are visible in the standby. > >> No? > > > > Please add #4 also. You can do that easily at the same time as #2 and > > #3, and it will leave me free to fix the perceived conflict problems. > > I think that we should implement the feature in small steps rather than > submit one big patch at a time. So I'd like to focus on #2 and #3 at first, > and #4 later (maybe third or fourth CF).
We both know if you do #2 and #3 then doing #4 also is trivial. If you leave it out then we'll end up missing something that is required and have to rework everything. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
