[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > Yep, WAL collects all database changes into one file. Easy to see how
> > some other host trying to replication a different host would find the
> > WAL contents valuable.
>
> Unfortunately, slave database(s) should be on the same platform
> (
> Yep, WAL collects all database changes into one file. Easy to see how
> some other host trying to replication a different host would find the
> WAL contents valuable.
Unfortunately, slave database(s) should be on the same platform
(hardware+OS) to be able to use information about *physical*
ch
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> > > > Row reuse without vacuum
> > >
> > > Yes, it will help to remove uncommitted rows.
> >
> > Same question as I asked Bruce ... how? :) I wasn't trying to be
> > fascisious(sp?) when I asked, I didn't realize the two were
> > connected and
> > > Row reuse without vacuum
> >
> > Yes, it will help to remove uncommitted rows.
>
> Same question as I asked Bruce ... how? :) I wasn't trying to be
> fascisious(sp?) when I asked, I didn't realize the two were
> connected and am curious as to how :)
After implementing UNDO operation (we
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > How?
> >
> > I guess other hosts could read the WAL to find out what changed.
>
> I wonder if that would get around one of the issues I had brought up a
> ways back concerning replication and stuff like sequences ...
Yep, WAL collects all data
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > How?
>
> I guess other hosts could read the WAL to find out what changed.
I wonder if that would get around one of the issues I had brought up a
ways back concerning replication and stuff like sequences ...
> > > Row reuse without vacuum
> >
> > H
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> > Row reuse without vacuum
>
> Yes, it will help to remove uncommitted rows.
Same question as I asked Bruce ... how? :) I wasn't trying to be
fascisious(sp?) when I asked, I didn't realize the two were connected and
am curious as to how :)
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > WAL was a difficult feature to add to 7.1. Currently, it is only used
> > as a performance benefit, but I expect it will be used in the future to
> > add new features like:
> >
> > Advanced Replication
>
> How?
I guess other hosts could
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> WAL was a difficult feature to add to 7.1. Currently, it is only used
> as a performance benefit, but I expect it will be used in the future to
> add new features like:
>
> Advanced Replication
How?
> Point-in-time recovery
I thought t
> WAL was a difficult feature to add to 7.1. Currently, it is only used
> as a performance benefit, but I expect it will be used in the future to
Not only. Did you forget about btree stability?
Partial disk writes?
> add new features like:
>
> Advanced Replication
I'm for sure not fan o
10 matches
Mail list logo
