Re: [HACKERS] Slony-I goes BETA (possible bug)
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Slony-I goes BETA (possible bug) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1086633238.13110.432.camel@jeff обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Slony-I goes BETA (possible bug) (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>) |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 06:20, Jan Wieck wrote: > I tend to agree with you that spurious SYNC's aren't the end of the > world. The idea of using notify to tell the syncThread somthing happened > is probably the right way to do it, but at this time a little invasive. > We need more time to investigate how to avoid notice storms during high > update activity on the master. > There was discussion a while back about improving notify, and one suggestion was to make it use shared memory so no disk writes are involved (I believe the current implementation uses a table somehow). If that was implemented, than we would have no problem with a notice storm, right? It wouldn't use much shared memory since the slon daemon can retrieve the notices just as fast as the backend can send them, right? Backtracking a little, I'm still wondering how exactly a replicated sequence is supposed to behave, do you have some comments about that? I don't understand exactly why it's useful. Regards, Jeff
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: