| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ivan Kartyshov <i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica / proof of concept |
| Date: | 2018-08-17 15:35:40 |
| Message-ID: | 7683.1534520140@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-08-17 18:00:20 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> So, do we have any objections to committing this?
> I think this needs more review by other senior hackers in the community.
TBH it sounds like a horrible hack. Disable vacuum truncation?
That can't be a good idea. If it were something we were doing
behind the scenes as a temporary expedient, maybe we could hold
our noses and do it for awhile. But once you introduce a reloption
based on this, you can't ever get rid of it.
I think we need to spend more effort looking for a less invasive,
less compromised solution.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-17 15:41:15 | Re: [HACKERS] WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica / proof of concept |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-17 15:06:33 | Re: [HACKERS] WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica / proof of concept |