[PostgreSQL-Hackers] HOOKS for Synchronous Replication?

Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
Anyone remember this patch?
http://gorda.di.uminho.pt/community/pgsqlhooks/
The discussion seems to be pretty minimal:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00859.php
Does anyone see a need to investigate it further?

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
I had hoped to see some comments from the Slony people about it.
I'd feel better about the validity of a set of hooks if more than
one project agreed that it was useful/appropriate ...

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

On Wednesday 07 December 2005 20:24, Tom Lane wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
I had hoped to see some comments from the Slony people about it.
I'd feel better about the validity of a set of hooks if more than
one project agreed that it was useful/appropriate ...

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:33:59AM -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
I missed seeing it all together the first time through, I'll see what I can do
about taking a indepth look at it over the next few days and provide some
feedback.

On 12/8/05, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
While this code might be useful, whouldn't it be much more valuable to
provide hooks into xlog so that we could do non-trigger-based
replication? (As well as non-trigger-based materialized views...)

On 12/8/2005 2:05 PM, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
While this code might be useful, whouldn't it be much more valuable to
provide hooks into xlog so that we could do non-trigger-based
replication? (As well as non-trigger-based materialized views...)

On 12/8/05, Jan Wieck wrote:
can do
some
I don't see why these would be mutually exclusive. A generic API needs
to have them all.

Without having looked at the patch yet, what I expect from an API is
that the backend will (after initialization and becoming a member of a
database) check if this database is replicated. If so load the specific
shared object that implement the backend part of the replication system
and then call an init() function in that. This init() function then will
add callbacks to all the hooks where this particular replication system
wants to be called. So one replication system might want to be called on
commit, just before writing the WAL record, some other system doesn't
care about that, but wants to see the WAL record after it was written.


Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

On 12/7/2005 11:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
I had hoped to see some comments from the Slony people about it.
I'd feel better about the validity of a set of hooks if more than
one project agreed that it was useful/appropriate ...