| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
| Date: | 2006-05-17 14:01:18 |
| Message-ID: | 19436.1147874478@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> You'll have to explain a little more. I checked the archives...
I was thinking of
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-01/msg00530.php
full explanation here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-01/msg00606.php
> The "lurking feeling" scenario above might or might nor be an issue
> here, but I can't see how the archiver could be involved at all.
Well, I don't see it either; at this point we're waiting on Jeff to
provide some harder evidence ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-17 14:40:35 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-17 09:33:18 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-17 14:11:39 | Re: PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-05-17 13:49:19 | Re: What default is - SET behavior |