| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Additional options for Sync Replication |
| Date: | 2011-03-28 11:05:35 |
| Message-ID: | 4D906B7F.9040802@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28.03.2011 13:14, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> You have no basis on which to prevent this.
>
> It's also already on the Open Items list, put there by you.
>
> Why is this even a discussion point?
FWIW, I agree this is an additional feature that we shouldn't be messing
with at this point in the release cycle.
The 'apply' mode would be quite interesting, it would make it easier to
build load-balancing clusters. But the patch isn't up to the task on
that yet - the 'apply' status report is only sent after
wal_receiver_status_interval fills up, so you get long delays.
PS. you're missing some break's in the switch-statement in
SyncRepWaitForLSN(), effectively making the patch do nothing.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2011-03-28 11:14:07 | Comments on system tables and columns |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-03-28 11:04:21 | Re: Needs Suggestion |