On 10/10/12 7:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > How does Slony write its changes without causing serialization replay > conflicts?
Since nobody from the Slony team answered this: a) Slony replicates *rows*, not *statements* b) Slony uses serializable mode internally for row replication c) it's possible (though difficult) for creative usage to get Slony into a deadlock situation FWIW, I have always assumed that is is impossible (even theoretically) to have statement-based replication without some constraints on the statements you can run, or some replication failures. I think we should expect 9.3's logical replication out-the-gate to have some issues and impose constraints on users, and improve with time but never be perfect. The design Andres and Simon have advanced already eliminates a lot of the common failure cases (now(), random(), nextval()) suffered by pgPool and similar tools. But remember, this feature doesn't have to be *perfect*, it just has to be *better* than the alternatives. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
