On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
>> If a standby is broadcasting reply messages and we have named
>> one or more standbys in synchronous_standby_names then allow
>> users who set synchronous_replication to wait for commit, which
>> then provides strict data integrity guarantees. Design avoids
>> sending and receiving transaction state information so minimises
>> bookkeeping overheads. We synchronize with the highest priority
>> standby that is connected and ready to synchronize. Other standbys
>> can be defined to takeover in case of standby failure.
>>
>> This version has very strict behaviour; more relaxed options
>> may be added at a later date.
>
> Pretty cool! I'd appreciate very much your efforts and contributions.
>
> And,, I found one bug ;) You seem to have wrongly removed the check
> of max_wal_senders in SyncRepWaitForLSN. This can make the
> backend wait for replication even if max_wal_senders = 0. I could produce
> this problematic situation in my machine. The attached patch fixes this problem.

I committed a slightly different fix for this problem.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

• Re: pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. at 2011-03-07 08:27:16 from Fujii Masao

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2011-03-10 20:47:21
	Subject: Re: B-tree parent pointer and checkpoints
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2011-03-10 20:42:15
	Subject: Re: configure gaps

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-03-10 20:56:42
	Subject: pgsql: More synchronous replication typo fixes.
Previous:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-03-10 20:43:59
	Subject: pgsql: More synchronous replication tweaks.