Re: "caught_up" status in walsender

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: "caught_up" status in walsender
Date: 2010-06-02 19:50:17
Message-ID: 11008.1275508217@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
> I'm still trying to understand the implications of the proposal, which
> sounds good but given just enough load on the slave, wouldn't it be
> playing catchup all the time?

Uh, if the slave is overloaded, *any* implementation will be playing
catchup all the time. Not sure about your point here.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-06-02 20:00:47 Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2010-06-02 19:46:22 Re: How to pass around collation information