On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 23:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 13.01.2011 22:57, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > On 1/13/11 12:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> That's going to depend on the situation. If the database fits in
> >> memory, then it's just going to work. If it fits on disk, it's less
> >> obvious whether it'll be good or bad, but an arbitrary limitation here
> >> doesn't serve us well.
> >
> > FWIW, if we had this feature right now in 9.0 we (PGX) would be using
> > it. We run into the case of DB in memory, multiple slaves fairly often
> > these days.
>
> Anyway, here's an updated patch with all the known issues fixed.
It's good we have this as an option and I like the way you've done this.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
