Hi,
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
This isn't quite true. Slony-II was originally conceived by Jan as
an attempt to implement some of the Postgres-R ideas.
Oh, right, thanks for that correction.
Part of the problem, as near as I could tell, was that we had no
group communication protocol that would really work. Spread needed a
_lot_ of work (where "lot of work" may mean "rewrite"), and I just
didn't have the humans to put on that problem. Another part of the
problem was that, for high-contention workloads like the ones we
happened to be working on, an optimistic approach like Postgres-R is
probably always going to be a loser.
Hm.. for high-contention on single rows, sure, yes - you would mostly
get rollbacks for conflicting transactions. But the optimism there is
justified, as I think most real world transactions don't conflict (or
else you can work around such high single row contention).
You are right in that the serialization of the GCS can be bottleneck.
However, there's lots of research going on in that area and I'm
convinced that Postgres-R has it's value.
Regards
Markus
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
