From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Subject: | Re: WIP partial replication patch |
Date: | 2010-08-14 09:47:54 |
Message-ID: | 20100814094754.GB2912@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:40:24AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> Andres Freund írta:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:36:00PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Lane írta:
> >>
> >>> Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> attached is a WIP patch that will eventually implement
> >>>> partial replication, with the following syntax:
> >>>>
> >>> This fundamentally cannot work, as it relies on system catalogs to be
> >>> valid during recovery.
> >>>
> >> Just like Hot Standby, no? What is the difference here?
> >> Sorry for being ignorant.
> >>
> > In HS you can only connect after youve found a restartpoint - only
> > after that you know that you have reached a consistent point for the
> > system.
> >
> And in this patch, the startup process only tries to connect
> after signalling the postmaster that a consistent state is reached.
> And the connection has a reasonable timeout built in.
I don't think you currently can guarantee you allways have enough local WAL to even reach
a consistent point. Which is not a problem of your patch, dont get me
wrong...
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-08-14 12:12:50 | Re: Proposal / proof of concept: Triggers on VIEWs |
Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2010-08-14 07:05:30 | Re: Per-column collation, proof of concept |