| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <furuyao(at)pm(dot)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <teranishih(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_receivexlog --status-interval add fsync feedback |
| Date: | 2014-10-23 15:11:58 |
| Message-ID: | 54491ABE.8000707@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/23/2014 06:01 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 23 October 2014 15:39, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I'm going around in the circle. But I'd like to say again, I don't think
>> this is good idea. It prevents asynchronous pg_receivexlog from fsyncing
>> WAL data and sending feedbacks more frequently at all. They are useful,
>> for example, when we want to monitor the write location of asynchronous
>> pg_receivexlog in almost realtime. But if we adopt the idea, since feedback
>> cannot be sent soon in async mode, pg_stat_replication always returns
>> the not-up-to-date location.
>
> Why not send a message every 10 seconds when its not sync rep?
Or even after every write(). It's a tiny amount of network traffic anyway.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-23 15:19:13 | Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-10-23 15:01:47 | Re: pg_receivexlog --status-interval add fsync feedback |