Re: Hot Standby: Caches and Locks

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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