From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <furuyao(at)pm(dot)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>, <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <teranishih(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Subject: | Re: pg_receivexlog --status-interval add fsync feedback |
Date: | 2014-09-27 07:53:21 |
Message-ID: | 54266CF1.6080801@vmware.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/05/2014 08:51 AM, furuyao(at)pm(dot)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp wrote:
>>> Thanks for the review!
>>>
>>> I understand the attention message wasn't appropriate.
>>>
>>> To report the write location, even If you do not specify a replication
>> slot.
>>> So the fix only appended messages.
>>>
>>> There was a description of the flush location section of '-S' option,
>>> but I intended to catch eye more and added a message.
>>>
>>> Is it better to make specification of the -S option indispensable?
>>
>> The patch cannot be applied to HEAD cleanly. Could you update the patch?
>
> Thank you for pointing out.
> Updated the patch.
I don't understand what this patch does. When would you want to use the
new --reply-fsync option? Is there any reason *not* to use it? In other
words, do we need an option for this, couldn't you just always send the
feedback message after fsync?
- Heikki
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2014-09-27 07:59:12 | Re: Sloppy thinking about leakproof properties of opclass co-members |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-09-27 07:28:52 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |