| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |
| Date: | 2010-05-18 21:25:46 |
| Message-ID: | 4BF305DA.4040002@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18/05/10 17:17, Simon Riggs wrote:
> There's no reason that the buffer size we use for XLogRead() should be
> the same as the send buffer, if you're worried about that. My point is
> that pq_putmessage contains internal flushes so at the libpq level you
> gain nothing by big batches. The read() will be buffered anyway with
> readahead so not sure what the issue is. We'll have to do this for sync
> rep anyway, so what's the big deal? Just do it now, once. Do we really
> want 9.1 code to differ here?
Do what? What exactly is it that you want instead, then?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-05-18 21:26:17 | Re: BYTEA / DBD::Pg change in 9.0 beta |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-18 21:21:45 | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |