Re: Big 7.4 items
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Big 7.4 items |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1039822713.1397.35.camel@tokyo обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Big 7.4 items (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Big 7.4 items
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 13:36, Jan Wieck wrote: > But you cannot use the result of such a SELECT to update anything. So > you can only phase out complete read only transaction to the slaves. > Requires support from the application since the load balancing system > cannot know automatically what will be a read only transaction and what > not. Interesting -- SQL contains the concept of "read only" and "read write" transactions (the default is RW). If we implemented that (which shouldn't be too difficult[1]), it might make differentiating between classes of transactions a little easier. Client applications would still need to be modified, but not nearly as much. Does this sound like it's worth doing? [1] -- AFAICS, the only tricky implementation detail is deciding exactly which database operations are "writes". Does nextval() count, for example? Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: