| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Failover Slots |
| Date: | 2016-01-22 16:51:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20160122165153.GA1276@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-01-22 11:40:24 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> It occurred to me to wonder if it might be better to
> propagate logical slots partially or entirely outside the WAL stream,
> because with this design you will end up with the logical slots on
> every replica, including cascaded replicas, and I'm not sure that's
> what we want. Then again, I'm also not sure it isn't what we want.
Not propagating them through the WAL also has the rather large advantage
of not barring the way to using such slots on standbys.
I think it's technically quite possible to maintain the required
resources on multiple nodes. The question is how would you configure on
which nodes the resources need to be maintained? I can't come up with a
satisfying scheme...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-22 16:54:00 | Re: Fwd: Re: [DOCS] Document Upper Limit for NAMEDATELEN in pgsql 9.5+ |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-01-22 16:40:24 | Re: WIP: Failover Slots |