| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Timeout for asynchronous replication Re: Timeout and wait-forever in sync rep |
| Date: | 2010-12-07 02:01:00 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinEqnwEw7YzVAJ=jgcDtVKC9OKn1BqzZLZ2X-XF@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Hmm, that's actually a quite different timeout than what's required for
> synchronous replication. In synchronous replication, you need to get an
> acknowledgment within a timeout. This patch only puts a timeout on how long
> we wait to have enough room in the TCP send buffer. That doesn't seem all
> that useful.
Yeah, I'm planning to implement that timeout for synchronous replication later.
Since I thought that we should implement the timeout for *asynchronous*
replication first and then extend it for synchronous replication, I created this
patch. This kind of timeout is required for asynchronous replication since
since there is no acknowledgement from the standby in it.
Most part of the patch implements the non-blocking send function and
changes walsender so that it uses that function instead of existing blocking
one. This will be infrastructure for the timeout for synchronous replication.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-12-07 02:04:02 | Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4 |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-12-07 02:00:24 | Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4 |