On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
>> If a standby is broadcasting reply messages and we have named
>> one or more standbys in synchronous_standby_names then allow
>> users who set synchronous_replication to wait for commit, which
>> then provides strict data integrity guarantees. Design avoids
>> sending and receiving transaction state information so minimises
>> bookkeeping overheads. We synchronize with the highest priority
>> standby that is connected and ready to synchronize. Other standbys
>> can be defined to takeover in case of standby failure.
>> This version has very strict behaviour; more relaxed options
>> may be added at a later date.
> Pretty cool! I'd appreciate very much your efforts and contributions.
> And,, I found one bug ;) You seem to have wrongly removed the check
> of max_wal_senders in SyncRepWaitForLSN. This can make the
> backend wait for replication even if max_wal_senders = 0. I could produce
> this problematic situation in my machine. The attached patch fixes this problem.
I committed a slightly different fix for this problem.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-03-10 20:47:21|
|Subject: Re: B-tree parent pointer and checkpoints|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-03-10 20:42:15|
|Subject: Re: configure gaps|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-03-10 20:56:42|
|Subject: pgsql: More synchronous replication typo fixes.|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-03-10 20:43:59|
|Subject: pgsql: More synchronous replication tweaks.|