Re: One last Slony question (was Re: Slightly OT.)
От | Ron Johnson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: One last Slony question (was Re: Slightly OT.) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4660B122.9010407@cox.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: One last Slony question (was Re: Slightly OT.) ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: One last Slony question (was Re: Slightly OT.)
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 06/01/07 18:35, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 06/01/07 17:31, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:23:44AM +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote: >>>> Could you not (I ask naively) detect the first DDL statement is >>>> submitted in a transaction >>> >>> Maybe. >>> >>>> on the master, then start a transaction on >>>> each slave, then funnel this and all subsequent statements >>>> synchronously to every nodes, then prepare and commit everyone? >>> >>> You could if 2PC was ubiquitous, which is certainly wasn't when the >>> code was designed (remember, it was originally compatible all the way >>> back to 7.3). Some people suggested using 2PC "if it's there", but >>> that just seems to me to be asking for really painful problems. It >>> also entails that all DDL has to happen on every node at the same >>> time, which imposes a bottleneck not actually currently in the >>> system. >> >> Since DDL is infrequent, is that bottleneck an acceptable trade-off? > > Define infrequent? I have customers that do it, everyday in prod. They > do it willingly and refuse to change that habit. Even 2 or 3 ALTER TABLE or CREATE INDEX or CREATE TABLE statements per day is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of I/U/D statements, no? -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: