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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 16:44:41
Message-ID: 29325.1300898681@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-03-23 16:53:46 Re: Comments on SQL/Med objects
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2011-03-23 16:10:12 Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication)