| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |
| Date: | 2008-09-09 13:01:09 |
| Message-ID: | 200809091501.11484.dfontaine@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Le mardi 09 septembre 2008, Heikki Linnakangas a écrit :
> The tricky part is, how does A know if it should wait, and for how long?
> commit_delay sure isn't ideal, but AFAICS the log shipping proposal
> doesn't provide any solution to that.
It might just be I'm not understanding what it's all about, but it seems to me
with WALSender process A will wait, whatever happens, either until the WAL is
sent to slave or written to disk on the slave.
I naively read Simon's proposition to consider GroupCommit done with this new
feature. A is already waiting (for some external event to complete), why
can't we use this for including some other transactions commits into the
local deal?
Regards,
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-09-09 13:05:19 | Re: [gsmith@gregsmith.com: Re: [patch] GUC source file and line number] |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-09 12:50:27 | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |