Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O
Date: 2009-12-14 19:11:45
Message-ID: 12218.1260817905@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I have a problem with that. What's the backend doing with libpq?
>> It's not receiving this data, it's sending it.

> walreceiver is a postmaster subprocess too.

Hm. Perhaps it should be a loadable plugin and not hard-linked into the
backend? Compare dblink.

The main concern I have with hard-linking libpq is that it has a lot of
symbol conflicts with the backend --- and at least the ones from
src/port/ aren't easily removed. I foresee problems that will be very
difficult to fix on platforms where we can't filter the set of link
symbols exposed by libpq. Linking a thread-enabled libpq into the
backend could also create problems on some platforms --- it would likely
cause a thread-capable libc to get linked, which is not what we want.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-12-14 19:14:06 Re: Hot Standby, release candidate?
Previous Message Scott Bailey 2009-12-14 19:10:14 Re: Range types