Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers
Date: 2010-07-07 14:11:14
Message-ID: 5723.1278511874@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
> Stop me if I'm all wrong already, but I though we said that we should
> handle this case by decoupling what we can send to the standby and what
> it can apply.

What's the point of that? It won't make the standby apply any faster.
What it will do is make the protocol more complicated, hence slower
(more messages) and more at risk of bugs.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2010-07-07 14:20:21 Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-07-07 14:07:04 Re: multibyte-character aware support for function "downcase_truncate_identifier()"