Re: Hot standby, recovery procs

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery procs
Date: 2009-02-26 10:32:49
Message-ID: 1235644369.16176.480.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 12:19 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:36 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> >>> You haven't even given a good reason to make these changes.
> >> Simplicity.
> >
> > You used that argument in January to explain why the coupling should be
> > reduced and now the same argument to put it back again.
>
> That was in reference to the slot ids, I'm not suggesting to put that
> back. If anything, removing the need for the the xl_topxid field in WAL
> record will further reduce the coupling between master and standby.

OK, well, if you feel those changes are necessary prior to commit then I
would ask you do that in your public repo and we'll test and provide
helpful comments on it from there as quickly as we can. Too many cooks
spoil the git.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-02-26 13:22:52 Re: Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-BatchHash Join for Skewed Data Sets
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2009-02-26 10:19:41 Re: Hot standby, recovery procs