On May 29, 2008, at 9:12 AM, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:58:31AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
Publishing the XIDs back to the master is one possibility. We
also looked at using "spillover segments" for vacuumed rows, but
that seemed even less viable.
I'm also thinking, for *async replication*, that we could simply
halt replication on the slave whenever a transaction passes minxid
on the master. However, the main focus will be on synchrounous
hot standby.
Another idea I discussed with Tom is having the slave _delay_
applying WAL files until all slave snapshots are ready.
Either one of these would be great, but something that involves
machines that stay useless most of the time is just not going to work.
I have customers who are thinking about warm standby functionality, and
the only thing stopping them deploying it is complexity and maintenance,
not the cost of the HA hardware. If trivial-to-deploy replication that
didn't
offer read-only access of the slaves were available today I'd bet that
most
of them would be using it.
Read-only slaves would certainly be nice, but (for me) it's making it
trivial to
deploy and maintain that's more interesting.
Cheers,
Steve
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
