Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry

On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 12:33 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/09/10 10:45, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 09:55 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> On 03/09/10 09:36, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 12:50 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >>>> That design would affect what the standby should reply. If we choose
> >>>> async/recv/fsync/replay on a per-transaction basis, the standby
> >>>> should send multiple LSNs and the master needs to decide when
> >>>> replication has been completed. OTOH, if we choose just sync/async,
> >>>> the standby has only to send one LSN.
> >>>>
> >>>> The former seems to be more useful, but triples the number of ACK
> >>>> from the standby. I'm not sure whether its overhead is ignorable,
> >>>> especially when the distance between the master and the standby is
> >>>> very long.
> >>>
> >>> No, it doesn't. There is no requirement for additional messages.
> >>
> >> Please explain how you do it then. When a commit record is sent to the
> >> standby, it needs to acknowledge it 1) when it has received it, 2) when
> >> it fsyncs it to disk and c) when it's replayed. I don't see how you can
> >> get around that.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you can save a bit by combining multiple messages together, like
> >> in Nagle's algorithm, but then you introduce extra delays which is
> >> exactly what you don't want.
> >
> >> From my perspective, you seem to be struggling to find reasons why this
> > should not happen, rather than seeing the alternatives that would
> > obviously present themselves if your attitude was a positive one. We
> > won't make any progress with this style of discussion.
>
> Huh? You made a very clear claim above that you don't need additional
> messages. I explained why I don't think that's true, and asked you to
> explain why you think it is true. Whether the claim is true or not does
> not depend on my attitude.

Why exactly would we need to send 3 messages when we could send 1?
Replace your statements of "it needs to" with "why would it" instead.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services