| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers |
| Date: | 2010-07-07 10:57:51 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimNzO-clewD45HgKaDCV4MfVVGKQpUNQEu8UXt2@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> wrote:
> Stop me if I'm all wrong already, but I though we said that we should
> handle this case by decoupling what we can send to the standby and what
> it can apply. We could do this by sending the current WAL fsync'ed
> position on the master in the WAL sender protocol, either in the WAL
> itself or as out-of-bound messages, I guess.
>
> Now, this can be made safe, how to make it fast (low-latency) is yet to
> be addressed.
Yeah, that's the trick, isn't it?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-07 12:48:17 | Re: Python Interface Hacking |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2010-07-07 09:05:00 | Re: cvs to git migration - keywords |