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.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
