Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?