| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: index-only scans vs. Hot Standby, round two |
| Date: | 2012-04-27 00:03:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY-YEfiOk6FcUhR3+KxAz9vhh3dKBNpxk3uvTwnQFWZ4Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> But fundamentally we all seem to be converging on some variant of the
> "soft conflict" idea.
So, as a first step, I've committed a patch that just throws a hard
conflict. I think we probably want to optimize this further, and I'm
going to work investigate that next. But it seemed productive to get
this much out of the way first, so I did.
In studying this, it strikes me that it would be rather nicer if we
recovery conflicts could somehow arrange to roll back the active
transaction by some means short of a FATAL error. I think there are
some protocol issues with doing that, but I still wish we could figure
out a way.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-04-27 00:26:52 | Re: Future In-Core Replication |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-26 23:40:40 | Re: Future In-Core Replication |