Re: Hot Standby (v9d)

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot Standby (v9d)
Date: 2009-02-03 13:50:28
Message-ID: 87zlh3iq8r.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> writes:

> Actually we came up with a solution to this - use filesystem level
> snapshots (like LVM2+XFS or ZFS), and redirect backends with
> long-running queries to use fs snapshot mounted to a different
> mountpoint.

Uhm, how do you determine which snapshot to direct the backend to? There could
have been several generations of tuples in that tid since your query started.
Do you take a snapshot every time there's a vacuum-snapshot conflict and
record which snapshot goes with that snapshot?

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-02-03 14:14:16 Re: Hot Standby (v9d)
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-02-03 13:40:56 Re: Hot Standby (v9d)