From: Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Cc: mario.splivalo@mobart.hr
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: why vacuum
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:52:15 -0500
Message-ID: <20051027175215.GJ63747@pervasive.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4360D44B.9020605@archonet.com>
References: <200510261015.17623.lawgon@thenilgiris.com>
<1130339980.2872.12.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
<435FAA21.3070400@Yahoo.com>
<1130401371.31435.17.camel@ekim>
<4360D44B.9020605@archonet.com>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 02:21:15PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> So - if your statement contains something non-deterministic that isn't
> catered for in Mysql's code then it will break.
>
> At it's simplest - if I write a function my_random() and then do:
> UPDATE foo SET a=1 WHERE b < my_random();
> IF my_random() returns different results on different machines, then the
> replication will be broken. See the manual entry below:
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/replication-features.html
>
> That's not to say the system is worthless - it works fine for many
> people. But it does have limitations.
And you can easily have multi-master syncronous replication in
PostgreSQL using the same idea; just see pgCluster.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: jnasby@pervasive.com, dev@archonet.com, mario.splivalo@mobart.hr
Subject: Re: why vacuum
In-Reply-To: <20051027175215.GJ63747@pervasive.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox