From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Detach/attach database |
Date: | 2011-11-14 15:12:53 |
Message-ID: | CAA-aLv6kpWtQCViwpmZ45mYFZSRCURTGJt48zLkb+4k+YmSvTg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14 November 2011 15:07, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 14 November 2011 13:32, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >> But Tom's point about XIDs and LSNs seems like it kind of puts a
> >> bullet through the heart of the whole idea.
> >
> > What about having database-level XIDs rather than cluster-level? Is that
> > remotely feasible?
>
> Maybe. You'd need a set separate set for shared catalogs, too. It
> seems like a heck of a lot of work, though, especially since (IME,
> anyway) most people only really one run one database per cluster.
>
Thought it would be a lot of work. Well one benefit I could potentially
see is paving the way for per-database replication. But I'll let this
dream go as it's clearly not something to realistically pursue.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-14 15:20:17 | Re: star join optimization |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-14 15:07:28 | Re: Detach/attach database |