On Friday April 4 2003 3:41, nolan@celery.tssi.com wrote:
> > I think a consistent view on the slave during active replication is not
> > quite guaranteed with this approach. Sequence updates are not
> > transactional, we really don't know how to order them with respect to
> > tuple updates. So someone reading the slave DB might possibly not see
> > sequence changes appear in the order in which they occurred on the
> > master. For our warm spare/slave needs, it appears adequate.
>
> Aside from problems dealing with the loss of the communications link,
> wouldn't it be better to implement a function call from the slave(s) to
> the master to query the master's sequence? This can be done with
> pgperlu.
Why do you think that would be better? It is already done in a perl
function that launches SQL ...
> If there are INDEPENDENT sequences on the master and the slave, what's to
> guarantee uniqueness?
Not sure I understand the question. Uniqueness in what respect?
Ed
