Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 3. Ignore problem > Effects: > * Long running queries on standby... > Have no effect on primary > Do not delay apply of WAL records on standby > * Queries on standby give inconsistent answers in some cases, though > doesn't generate any messages to show inconsistency occurred. Acceptable > for read-only and insert only tables only.
This seems like a non-starter. Your comment about read-only and insert-only tuples only seems to make sense if you assume there are other tables being updated simultaneously. Otherwise of course there would be no WAL records for tuple removals. In that case the problem is dealing with different usage patterns on different tables. There might be a way to solve just that use case such as deferring WAL records for those tables. That doesn't guarantee inter-table data consistency if there were other queries which read from those tables and updated other tables based on that data though. Perhaps there's a solution for that too though. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
