From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication |
Date: | 2010-09-20 14:55:51 |
Message-ID: | 4C9775F7.7070008@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17/09/10 12:22, 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.
Oh, that's simple.
It doesn't feel right to always accept PQputCopyData in COPY OUT mode,
though. IMHO there should be a new COPY IN+OUT mode.
It should be pretty safe to add a CopyInOutResponse message to the
protocol without a protocol version bump. Thoughts on that?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2010-09-20 15:03:25 | Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-09-20 14:54:34 | Re: What happened to the is_<type> family of functions proposal? |