| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Additional options for Sync Replication |
| Date: | 2011-03-30 07:51:56 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=6n_i5RTC-hYqKQgbeycEXV-N2r+UMhhXJDFVg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm very excited about new options, especially recv. But I agree with
> Robert and Heikki because what the patch provides looks like new
> feature rather than bug fix. And I think that we still require some
> discussions of the design; how far transactions must wait for sync
> rep in recv mode? In the patch, they wait for WAL to be written in
> the standby, but I think that they should wait until walreceiver has
> recieved WAL instead. That would increase the performance of sync
> rep. Anyway, I don't think now is time to discuss about such a design
> except for bug fix.
Not waiting for write would just be much less safe and would not have
any purpose as a sync rep option.
The difference in time would be very marginal also.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2011-03-30 07:54:04 | Re: pg_last_xlog_receive_location() |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-03-30 07:24:53 | Re: Replication server timeout patch |