Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
| От | Craig Ringer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Why we lost Uber as a user |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMsr+YEej2hxCoz965E4cvRyCk=2rOSf910U0Gtyzso7VhqVww@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Why we lost Uber as a user (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 17 August 2016 at 21:35, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> I saw from the Uber article that they weren't going to per-row logical
> replication but _statement_ replication, which is very hard to do
> because typical SQL doesn't record what concurrent transactions
> committed before a new statement's transaction snapshot is taken, and
> doesn't record lock order for row updates blocked by concurrent activity
> --- both of which affect the final result from the query.
I assume they can do SQL-level replication when there is no other
concurrent activity on the table, and row-based in other cases?
I don't know, but wouldn't want to assume that. A quick search suggests they probably define that away as nondeterministic behaviour that's allowed to cause master/replica differences, but no time to look deeply.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: