On 11 January 2012 23:51, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> Yeah, upthread Simon pointed out that propagating notifies would be >> useful for flushing caches in applications that watch the database in a >> read-only fashion. I grant that such a use-case is technically possible >> within the limitations of a slave server; I'm just dubious that it's a >> sufficiently attractive use-case to justify the complexity and future >> maintenance costs of the sort of designs we are talking about. Or in >> other words: so far, cache invalidation is not the "first" use-case, >> it's the ONLY POSSIBLE use-case. That's not useful enough. > > Well, cache invalidation is a pretty common task; probably more than 50% > of all database applications need to do it.
I agree that it would be nice to support this type of cache invalidation - without commenting on the implementation, I think that the concept is very useful, and of immediate benefit to a significant number of people. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ 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
