From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication |
Date: | 2010-09-20 16:26:54 |
Message-ID: | 1285000014.1733.5757.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:22 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > That said, there's a few small things that can be progressed regardless of
> > the details of synchronous replication. There's the changes to trigger
> > failover with a signal, and it seems that we'll need some libpq changes to
> > allow acknowledgments to be sent back to the master regardless of the rest
> > of the design. We can discuss those in separate threads in parallel.
>
> Agreed. The attached patch introduces new function which is used
> to send ACK back from walreceiver. The function sends a message
> to XLOG stream by calling PQputCopyData. Also I allowed PQputCopyData
> to be called even during COPY OUT.
Does this differ from Zoltan's code?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-09-20 16:28:55 | Re: Do we need a ShmList implementation? |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-09-20 16:25:34 | Re: Do we need a ShmList implementation? |