| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous replication patch built on SR |
| Date: | 2010-05-18 11:41:58 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTiny_kh8Umv3v8qpRZ2sBV0jLasBlQ_AMu3xGHsQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> BTW, What I'd like to see as a very first patch first is to change the
> current poll loops in walreceiver and walsender to, well, not poll.
> That's a requirement for synchronous replication, is very useful on its
> own, and requires a some design and implementation effort to get right.
> It would be nice to get that out of the way before/during we discuss the
> more user-visible behavior.
Yeah, we should wake up the walesender from sleep to send WAL data
as soon as it's flushed. But why do we need to change the loop of
walreceiver? Or you mean changing the poll loop in the startup process?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jesper | 2010-05-18 13:11:40 | pg_upgrade - link mode and transaction-wraparound data loss |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-18 11:35:00 | Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) |