From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1 |
Date: | 2011-02-10 02:09:24 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=Pu2ne=VO-+CLMXLQh9y85qumLCbBP15CjnyUS@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> I also agree with the general idea of trying to break it into smaller
>> parts - even if they only provide small parts each on it's own. That
>> also makes it easier to get an overview of exactly how much is left,
>> to see where to focus.
>
> And on that note, here's the rest of the patch back, rebased over what
> I posted ~90 minutes ago.
Though I haven't read the patch enough yet, I have one review comment.
While walsender uses the non-blocking I/O function (i.e.,
pq_getbyte_if_available)
for the receive, it uses the blocking one (i.e., pq_flush, etc) for the send.
So, sync_rep_timeout_server would not work well when the walsender
gets blocked in sending WAL. This is one the problems which I struggled
with when I created the SyncRep patch before. I think that we need to
introduce the non-blocking send function for the replication timeout.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-02-10 02:20:55 | Re: Move WAL warning |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-02-10 02:03:55 | Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade |