From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |
Date: | 2008-09-09 12:39:17 |
Message-ID: | 1220963957.3913.474.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 08:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes. We should have a LogwrtRqst pointer and LogwrtResult pointer for
> >> the send operation. The Write and Send operations can then continue
> >> independently of one another. XLogInsert() cannot advance to a new page
> >> while we are waiting to send or write.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> "Agreed"? That last restriction is a deal-breaker.
OK, I should have said *if wal_buffers are full* XLogInsert() cannot
advance to a new page while we are waiting to send or write. So I don't
think its a deal breaker.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2008-09-09 12:46:16 | Re: [PATCHES] to_date() validation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-09 12:24:04 | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |