Re: Review: Hot standby

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: Hot standby
Date: 2008-11-28 16:14:43
Message-ID: 26392.1227888883@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> After some thought, the way I would handle this is by sending a slightly
> different kind of signal.

> We can send a shared invalidation message which means "end the
> transaction, whether or not you are currently running a statement".

No, a thousand times no. The sinval queue is an *utterly* inappropriate
mechanism for such a thing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-11-28 16:20:16 Re: Distinct types
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2008-11-28 16:12:08 Re: Distinct types