Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay
Date: 2010-06-03 15:18:06
Message-ID: 26671.1275578286@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It is off-base. The receiver does not "request" data, the sender is
>> what determines how much WAL is sent when.

> Hm, so what happens if the slave blocks, doesn't the sender block when
> the kernel buffers fill up?

Well, if the slave can't keep up, that's a separate problem. It will
not fail to keep up as a result of the transmission mechanism.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian Pflug 2010-06-03 15:19:30 Re: PITR Recovery Question
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-06-03 15:17:53 Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature