Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O

From: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>,Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>,Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O
Date: 2010-01-15 20:27:10
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> [100115 15:20]:

> Ok. I'll look at splitting walreceiver code between the shared module
> and backend binary slightly differently. At first glance, it doesn't
> seem that hard after all, and will make the code more modular anyway.

Maybe an insane question, but why can postmaster just not "exec"
walreceiver?  I mean, because of windows, we already have that code
around, and then walreceiver could link directly to libpq and not have
to worry at all about linking all of postmaster backends to libpq...

But I do understand that's a radical change...

Aidan Van Dyk                                             Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca                                       command like a king,                                   work like a slave.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-01-15 20:32:56
Subject: Re: Testing with concurrent sessions
Previous:From: James William PyeDate: 2010-01-15 20:26:13
Subject: Re: plpython3

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group