| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-05-26 13:20:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1274880046.6203.2989.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:52 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I guess that dropping the support of #3 doesn't reduce complexity
> since the code of #3 is almost the same as that of #2. Like
> walreceiver sends the ACK after receiving the WAL in #2 case, it has
> only to do the same thing after the WAL flush.
Hmm, well the code for #3 is similar also to the code for #4. So if you
do #2, its easy to do #2, #3 and #4 together.
The comment is about whether having #3 makes sense from a user interface
perspective. It's easy to add options, but they must have useful
meaning.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Giles Lean | 2010-05-26 13:34:14 | Re: libpq, PQexecPrepared, data size sent to FE vs. FETCH_COUNT |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-26 13:16:45 | out-of-date comment in CreateRestartPoint() |