| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |
| Date: | 2008-09-09 13:32:42 |
| Message-ID: | 200809091532.45364.dfontaine@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le mardi 09 septembre 2008, Markus Wanner a écrit :
> ..and it will still has to wait until WAL is written to disk on the
> local node, as we do now. These are two different things to wait for.
> One is a network socket operation, the other is an fsync(). As these
> don't work together too well (blocking), you better run that in two
> different processes.
Exactly the point. The process is now already waiting in all cases, so maybe
we could just force waiting some WALSender signal before sending the fsync()
order, so we now have Group Commit.
I'm not sure this is a good idea at all, it's just the way I understand how
adding WALSender process in the mix could give Group Commit feature for free.
Regards,
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-09 13:42:32 | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |
| Previous Message | Markus Wanner | 2008-09-09 13:16:14 | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |