Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(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 12:24:04
Message-ID: 22900.1220963044@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-09 12:39:17 Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-09-09 12:22:14 Re: Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal