Re: index-only scans vs. Hot Standby, round two
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: index-only scans vs. Hot Standby, round two |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmobo4=d_WZZQW6XrCRW5WsFdS6KhMnSPJSoQT3vk5EaP_Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: index-only scans vs. Hot Standby, round two (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: index-only scans vs. Hot Standby, round two
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: