On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 12:40 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> > I agree that #4 should be done last, but it will be needed, not in the
>> > least by your employer ;-) . I don't see any obvious way to make #4
>> > compatible with any significant query load on the slave, but in general
>> > I'd think that users of #4 are far more concerned with 0% data loss than
>> > they are with getting the slave to run read queries.
>>
>> Since #2 and #3 are enough for 0% data loss, I think that such users
>> would be more concerned about what results are visible in the standby.
>> No?
>
> Please add #4 also. You can do that easily at the same time as #2 and
> #3, and it will leave me free to fix the perceived conflict problems.
I think that we should implement the feature in small steps rather than
submit one big patch at a time. So I'd like to focus on #2 and #3 at first,
and #4 later (maybe third or fourth CF).
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
