On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Who sends the ack message?
> Who receives it?
> Would it be easier to have
> this happen in a second pair of processes WALSynchroniser (on primary)
> and WAL Acknowledger (on standby). WALAcknowledger would send back a
> stream of ack messages with latest xlog positions. WALSynchroniser would
> receive these messages and wake up sleeping backends. If we did that
> then there'd be almost no change at all to existing code, just
> additional code and processes for the sync case. Code would be separate
> and there would be no performance concerns either.
No, this seems to be bad idea. We should not establish extra connection
between servers. That would be a source of trouble.
> If you do choose to make #3 important, then I'd say you need to work out
> how to make WALWriter active as well, so it can perform regular fsyncs,
> rather than having WALReceiver wait across that I/O.
Yeah, this might be an option for optimization though I'm not sure how
it has good effect.
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Mike Fowler||Date: 2010-05-27 10:24:11|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add XMLEXISTS function from the SQL/XML standard|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-05-27 10:21:08|
|Subject: Re: Synchronization levels in SR|