| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-05-27 19:53:35 |
| Message-ID: | 201005271953.o4RJrZb19428@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:52 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> > I guess that dropping the support of #3 doesn't reduce complexity
> > since the code of #3 is almost the same as that of #2. Like
> > walreceiver sends the ACK after receiving the WAL in #2 case, it has
> > only to do the same thing after the WAL flush.
>
> Hmm, well the code for #3 is similar also to the code for #4. So if you
> do #2, its easy to do #2, #3 and #4 together.
>
> The comment is about whether having #3 makes sense from a user interface
> perspective. It's easy to add options, but they must have useful
> meaning.
If the slave is runing read-only queries, #3 is the most reliable option
withouth delaying the slave, so there is a usecase for #3.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-27 19:55:14 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-05-27 19:52:35 | Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages |