On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 12:40 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > I agree that #4 should be done last, but it will be needed, not in the > > least by your employer ;-) . I don't see any obvious way to make #4 > > compatible with any significant query load on the slave, but in general > > I'd think that users of #4 are far more concerned with 0% data loss than > > they are with getting the slave to run read queries. > > Since #2 and #3 are enough for 0% data loss, I think that such users > would be more concerned about what results are visible in the standby. > No?
Please add #4 also. You can do that easily at the same time as #2 and #3, and it will leave me free to fix the perceived conflict problems. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
