From: | <furuyao(at)pm(dot)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | <masao(dot)fujii(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: | 2014-08-22 04:35:48 |
Message-ID: | A9C510524E235E44AE909CD4027AE196BF7C70D19C@MBX-MSG-SV03.msg.nttdata.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Thank you for updating the patch.
> I reviewed the patch.
>
> First of all, I think that we should not append the above message to
> section of '-r' option.
> (Or these message might not be needed at all) Whether flush location in
> feedback message is valid, is not depend on '-r' option.
>
> If we use '-r' option and 'S' option (i.g., replication slot) then
> pg_receivexlog informs valid flush location to primary server at the same
> time as doing fsync.
> But, if we don't specify replication slot then the flush location in
> feedback message always invalid.
> So I think Fujii-san pointed out that sending of invalid flush location
> is not needed if pg_receivexlog does not use replication slot.
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?
Regards,
--
Furuya Osamu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2014-08-22 05:35:15 | Re: Compute attr_needed for child relations (was Re: inherit support for foreign tables) |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-08-22 04:08:11 | Re: option -T in pg_basebackup doesn't work on windows |