* Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> [100226 15:10]:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I don't see a "substantial additional burden" there. What I would
> > imagine is needed is that the slave transmits a single number back
> > --- its current oldest xmin --- and the walsender process publishes
> > that number as its transaction xmin in its PGPROC entry on the master.
>
> And when we want to support cascading slaves?
>
> Or when you want to bring up a new slave and it suddenly starts
> advertising a new xmin that's older than the current oldestxmin?
>
> But in any case if I were running a reporting database I would want it
> to just stop replaying logs for a few hours while my big batch report
> runs, not cause the master to be unable to vacuum any dead records for
> hours. That defeats much of the purpose of running the queries on the
> slave.
*I* would be quite happy having the stop--and-go and the closed-loop be
the only 2 modes of operation, and I'ld even be quite happy if the were
both limited to separate method:
1) Running SR - then you are forced to use a closed-loop
2) Running HS from a backup/archive - forced to use stop-n-go
#1 still needs to deal ith a slave "disappearing" and not advancing xmin
for a period (TCP timeout)?
I'll note that until SR does synchronous streaming rep (which will
likely require some close-loop plan to allow the slave to be hot), I
want situation #2, and hopefully the knob to control how long it allows
a "stop" before going again can be a HUP'able knob so I can change it
occasionally without taking the server down...
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.