Tom Lane wrote: > I'm going to make an unvarnished assertion here. I believe that the > notion of synchronizing the WAL stream against slave queries is > fundamentally wrong and we will never be able to make it work. > The information needed isn't available in the log stream and can't be > made available without very large additions (and consequent performance > penalties). As we start getting actual beta testing we are going to > uncover all sorts of missed cases that are not going to be fixable > without piling additional ugly kluges on top of the ones Simon has > already crammed into the system. Performance and reliability will both > suffer. > > I think that what we are going to have to do before we can ship 9.0 > is rip all of that stuff out and replace it with the sort of closed-loop > synchronization Greg Smith is pushing. It will probably be several > months before everyone is forced to accept that, which is why 9.0 is > not going to ship this year.
Wow, can I have some varnish with that. :-O You are right that we need to go down the road a bit before we know what we need for 9.0 or 9.1. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
