Обсуждение: Are we still interested in the master-slave scan patch
I may have some free time recently to work on the master-slave scan idea. I've been able to support AS-IS both SeqScan and IndexScan. Are we still interested in getting it into 8.2? There are still some problems I am not quite sure the solution. One is the Xid assignment -- we need this to assure that master and slaves see the same snapshot. The other is the connection pool architecture: shall we let postmaster manage the slaves or let another process say slave-master to handle them? Currently I am choosing the latter. Regards, Qingqing
QingQing, > I may have some free time recently to work on the master-slave scan idea. > I've been able to support AS-IS both SeqScan and IndexScan. Are we still > interested in getting it into 8.2? I don't know about anyone else, but *I'm* still interested. > There are still some problems I am not quite sure the solution. One is the > Xid assignment -- we need this to assure that master and slaves see the > same snapshot. The other is the connection pool architecture: shall we let > postmaster manage the slaves or let another process say slave-master to > handle them? Currently I am choosing the latter. Hmmm. Why not the postmaster? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote > > The other is the connection pool architecture: shall we let > > postmaster manage the slaves or let another process say slave-master to > > handle them? Currently I am choosing the latter. > > Hmmm. Why not the postmaster? > Not real reason just feel that's clearer (but indeed it caused some trouble). I am thinking maybe we should make a server-side connection pool patch as a first step (which was discussed long time ago but no conclusion yet). In this way, we will be able to reduce the connection time and make a basis for parallel execution. Regards, Qingqing