On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 23:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 13.01.2011 22:57, Josh Berkus wrote: > > On 1/13/11 12:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> That's going to depend on the situation. If the database fits in > >> memory, then it's just going to work. If it fits on disk, it's less > >> obvious whether it'll be good or bad, but an arbitrary limitation here > >> doesn't serve us well. > > > > FWIW, if we had this feature right now in 9.0 we (PGX) would be using > > it. We run into the case of DB in memory, multiple slaves fairly often > > these days. > > Anyway, here's an updated patch with all the known issues fixed.
It's good we have this as an option and I like the way you've done this. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
