From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hot Standby: Caches and Locks |
Date: | 2008-10-30 12:30:28 |
Message-ID: | 9246.1225369828@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:
>> We can't augment the commit/abort messages because
>> we must cater for non-transactional invalidations also, plus commit
>> xlrecs are already complex enough. So we log invalidations prior to
>> commit, queue them and then trigger the send at commit (if it
>> happens).
> Augmenting the commit messages seems like the better approach. It allows
> invalidation messages to be fired as they are read off the xlrec. Still
> need the additional message type to handle nontransactional
> invalidation. There are other messages possibly more complex than this
> already.
I guess I hadn't been paying attention, but: adding syscache inval
traffic to WAL seems like a completely horrid idea, both from the
complexity and performance standpoints. What about using the existing
syscache logic to re-derive inval information from watching the update
operations?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-30 12:32:56 | Re: Question about GetAttributeByNum(Name) ExecQual.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-30 12:20:58 | Re: TABLE command |