Neil Conway wrote:
> 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?
You can't migrate a session between nodes, so the entire _session_ has
to be read-only.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073