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: | 2012-04-16 20:13:48 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobo4=d_WZZQW6XrCRW5WsFdS6KhMnSPJSoQT3vk5EaP_Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> If we do need to do something, then introduce concept of a visibility conflict.
>
> On replay:
> If feedback not set, set LSN of visibility conflict on PROCs that
> conflict, if not already set.
>
> On query:
> If feedback not set, check conflict LSN against page, if page is
> later, check visibility.
Hmm, should have read the whole thread before replying. This similar
to what I just proposed in response to Heikki's message, but using LSN
in lieu of (or maybe you mean in addition to) XID.
I don't think we can ignore the need to throw conflicts just because
hot_standby_feedback is set; there are going to be corner cases, for
example, when it's just recently been turned on and the master has
already done cleanup; or if the master and standby have recently
gotten disconnected for even just a few seconds.
But fundamentally we all seem to be converging on some variant of the
"soft conflict" idea.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2012-04-16 20:23:09 | Re: Last gasp |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-04-16 20:12:18 | Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join |