Re: "caught_up" status in walsender

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: "caught_up" status in walsender
Date: 2010-06-03 15:26:07
Message-ID: 26798.1275578767@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> On further contemplation, it seems like the protocol needs another field
> besides that: each record should also carry a boolean indicating whether
> walsender.c thinks it is currently "caught up", ie the record carries
> all WAL data up to the current end of WAL.

Actually, there's a better way to do that: let's have the record carry
not just a boolean but the actual current end-of-WAL LSN. The receiver
could then not just determine "am I behind" but find out *how far*
behind it is, and thereby perhaps adjust its behavior in more subtle
ways than just a binary on/off fashion.

(Actually doing anything like that is material for future work, of
course, but I think we should try to get the SR protocol right now.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2010-06-03 15:27:51 Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-06-03 15:25:04 Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?