| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Hodges <robert(dot)hodges(at)continuent(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jens-Wolfhard Schicke <drahflow(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction-controlled robustness for replication |
| Date: | 2008-08-12 21:28:15 |
| Message-ID: | 48A2006F.5040100@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Robert Hodges wrote:
> Could you expand on why logical application of WAL records is impractical in
> these cases? This is what Oracle does. Moreover once you are into SQL a
> lot of other use cases immediately become practical, such as large scale
> master/slave set-ups for read scaling.
I cannot speak for Tom, but what strikes me as a strange approach here
is using the WAL for "logical application" of changes. That's because
the WAL is quite far away from SQL, and thus from a "logical
representation" of the data. It's rather pretty physical, meaning it's
bound to a certain Postgres release and CPU architecture.
A more "logical" exchange format certainly poses less problems across
releases, encodings and CPU architectures. Or even across RDMSen. But
hey, let's see what Simon comes up with...
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2008-08-12 21:52:40 | Re: SeqScan costs |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-08-12 20:54:43 | Re: SeqScan costs |