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

Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: 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 19:15:01
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2010/1/15 Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> This change which moves walreceiver process into a dynamically loaded
>>>> module caused the following compile error on my MinGW environment.
>>> That sounds strange - it should pick those up from the -lpostgres. Any
>>> chance you have an old postgres binary around from a non-syncrep build
>>> or something?
>> No, there is no old postgres binary.
>>> Do you have an environment to try to build it under msvc?
>> No, unfortunately.
>>> in my
>>> experience, that gives you easier-to-understand error messages in a
>>> lot of cases like this - it removets the mingw black magic.
>> OK. I'll try to build it under msvc.
>> But since there seems to be a long way to go before doing that,
>> I would appreciate if someone could give me some advice.
> It looks like dawn_bat is experiencing the same problem. I don't think
> we want to sprinkle all those variables with PGDLLIMPORT, and it didn't
> fix the problem for you earlier anyway. Is there some other way to fix this?
> Do people still use MinGW for any real work? Could we just drop
> walreceiver support from MinGW builds?

We don't know if this works on MSVC, because MSVC doesn't actually try
to build the walreceiver. I'm going to look at that tomorrow.

If we get the same issues there, we a problem in our code. If not, we
need to figure out what's up with mingw.

> Or maybe we should consider splitting walreceiver into two parts after
> all. Only the bare minimum that needs to access libpq would go into the
> shared object, and the rest would be linked with the backend as usual.

That would certainly be one option.

 Magnus Hagander

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2010-01-15 19:18:14
Subject: Re: Testing with concurrent sessions
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2010-01-15 19:11:11
Subject: Re: missing data in information_schema grant_* tables?

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