Re: [HACKERS] Slony-I goes BETA (possible bug)

On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 06:20, Jan Wieck wrote:
> I tend to agree with you that spurious SYNC's aren't the end of the 
> world. The idea of using notify to tell the syncThread somthing happened 
> is probably the right way to do it, but at this time a little invasive. 
> We need more time to investigate how to avoid notice storms during high 
> update activity on the master.
> 

There was discussion a while back about improving notify, and one
suggestion was to make it use shared memory so no disk writes are
involved (I believe the current implementation uses a table somehow). If
that was implemented, than we would have no problem with a notice storm,
right? It wouldn't use much shared memory since the slon daemon can
retrieve the notices just as fast as the backend can send them, right?

Backtracking a little, I'm still wondering how exactly a replicated
sequence is supposed to behave, do you have some comments about that? I
don't understand exactly why it's useful.

Regards,
	Jeff