Re: Batch replication ordering (was Re: [GENERAL] 32/64-bit

On Friday April 11 2003 5:48, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Ed L." <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> writes:
> > > I don't think so. Can you imagine a replication queue big enough to
> > > that someone might not want to process it entirely in one
> > > transaction?
> >
> > No, I can't. The bigger the queue is, the further behind you are, and
> > the more you need to catch up; twiddling your thumbs for awhile gets
> > progressively less attractive.
>
> That is absolutely sure in an asynchronous multi-master situation, where
> "twiddling" only leads to conflicts ... not making your situation any
> easier.
>
> But in a pure master slave situation? There I can imagine this.

The context of my question is strictly master slave.

> What I cannot imagine is why one would want to try to make batches any
> other size than the original transaction. Committing smaller "chunks" of
> the masters transactions at the slave side would allow a client there to
> see an inconsistent snapshot - that is bad (tm). Committing bigger
> groups contains the risk that the slave run's out of resources that the
> master didn't need - not any better.

To what slave resources are you referring?

Ed