On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>> In my patch, the reason I avoided doing WRITE mode (which we had
>> previously referred to as RECV) was that no fsync of the WAL contents
>> takes place. In that case we are applying changes using un-fsynced WAL
>> data and in case of crash this would cause a problem.
>
> My patch has not changed the execution order of WAL flush and replay.
> WAL records are always replayed after they are flushed by walreceiver.
> So, such a problem doesn't happen.

> But which means that transaction might need to wait for WAL flush caused
> by previous transaction even if WRITE mode is chosen. Which limits the
> performance gain by WRITE mode, and should be improved later, I think.

If the WALreceiver still flushes that is OK.

The latency would be smoother and lower if the WALwriter were active.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

• Re: New replication mode: write at 2012-01-13 12:27:13 from Fujii Masao

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2012-01-13 13:05:47
	Subject: pgsql: Correctly initialise shared recoveryLastRecPtr in recovery.
Previous:	From: Fujii Masao	Date: 2012-01-13 12:27:13
	Subject: Re: New replication mode: write