| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andres Freund" <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Daniel Farina" <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node |
| Date: | 2012-06-19 22:27:32 |
| Message-ID: | 4FE0B6840200002500048725@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes, thats definitely a valid use-case. But that doesn't preclude
> the other - also not uncommon - use-case where you want to have
> different master which all contain up2date data.
I agree. I was just saying that while one requires an origin_id,
the other doesn't. And those not doing MM replication definitely
don't need it.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-06-19 22:30:38 | Re: WAL format changes |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-06-19 22:24:54 | Re: WAL format changes |