| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay |
| Date: | 2010-01-18 12:12:31 |
| Message-ID: | 4B54502F.2020203@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> What were the blockers that prevented sync rep from being included? I
> must have missed the discussion on that part.
For one, figuring out how to send back the notifications about WAL
applied in standby, and all the IPC required for that.
Streaming replication is a complex enough patch in just asynchronous
mode. Including synchronous mode would certainly have meant missing 8.5,
we just don't have the resources to review all at once. Even if we did,
splitting the project into smaller increments is a good idea anyway.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-01-18 12:17:57 | Re: New XLOG record indicating WAL-skipping |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-01-18 12:11:05 | Bloom filters bloom filters |