Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication)
Date: 2011-03-23 18:25:51
Message-ID: AANLkTikCfjJKWkKspKARTQAwUMp2hm+Rrw0GZpD1Cfzh@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I
>> think we need to apply something like the attached.
>
>>                       while (walrcv_receive(0, &type, &buf, &len))
>>                               XLogWalRcvProcessMsg(type, buf, len);
>
>> +                     /* Let the master know that we received some data. */
>> +                     XLogWalRcvSendReply();
>
> What if we didn't actually receive any new data?

The portion of the code immediately preceding what's included in the
diff guards against that, and there is a second guard in
XLogWalRcvSendReply().

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-03-23 18:43:25 Re: Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-03-23 18:22:33 Re: Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication)