On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 13:36, Jan Wieck wrote: > But you cannot use the result of such a SELECT to update anything. So > you can only phase out complete read only transaction to the slaves. > Requires support from the application since the load balancing system > cannot know automatically what will be a read only transaction and what > not.
Interesting -- SQL contains the concept of "read only" and "read write" transactions (the default is RW). If we implemented that (which shouldn't be too difficult[1]), it might make differentiating between classes of transactions a little easier. Client applications would still need to be modified, but not nearly as much. Does this sound like it's worth doing? [1] -- AFAICS, the only tricky implementation detail is deciding exactly which database operations are "writes". Does nextval() count, for example? Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
