Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-01-18 12:17:57
Subject: Re: New XLOG record indicating WAL-skipping
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2010-01-18 12:11:05
Subject: Bloom filters bloom filters

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group