On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 12:31 +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But since you mention it: one of the plausible answers for > fixing the > vacuum problem for read-only slaves is to have the slaves push > an xmin > back upstream to the master to prevent premature vacuuming. > The current > design of pg_standby is utterly incapable of handling that > requirement. > So there might be an implementation dependency there, > depending on how > we want to solve that problem. > > I think it would be best to not make the slave interfere with the > master's operations; that's only going to increase the operational > complexity of such a solution. > > There could be multiple slaves following a master, some serving > data-warehousing queries, some for load-balancing reads, some others > just for disaster recovery, and then some just to mitigate human > errors by re-applying the logs with a delay.
Agreed. We ruled that out as the-only-solution a while back. It does have the beauty of simplicity, so it may exist as an option or possibly the only way, for 8.4. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
