Re: Detach/attach database

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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