Re: [HACKERS] Are we still interested in the master-slave scan patch

2006-06-14 Thread Qingqing Zhou
"Josh Berkus" wrote > > The other is the connection pool architecture: shall we let > > postmaster manage the slaves or let another process say slave-master to > > handle them? Currently I am choosing the latter. > > Hmmm. Why not the postmaster? > Not real reason just feel that's clearer (but

Re: [HACKERS] Are we still interested in the master-slave scan patch

2006-06-14 Thread Josh Berkus
QingQing, > I may have some free time recently to work on the master-slave scan idea. > I've been able to support AS-IS both SeqScan and IndexScan. Are we still > interested in getting it into 8.2? I don't know about anyone else, but *I'm* still interested. > There are still some problems I am n

[HACKERS] Are we still interested in the master-slave scan patch

2006-06-14 Thread Qingqing Zhou
I may have some free time recently to work on the master-slave scan idea. I've been able to support AS-IS both SeqScan and IndexScan. Are we still interested in getting it into 8.2? There are still some problems I am not quite sure the solution. One is the Xid assignment -- we need this to assure