From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication) |
Date: | 2011-03-23 18:25:51 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikCfjJKWkKspKARTQAwUMp2hm+Rrw0GZpD1Cfzh@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I
>> think we need to apply something like the attached.
>
>> while (walrcv_receive(0, &type, &buf, &len))
>> XLogWalRcvProcessMsg(type, buf, len);
>
>> + /* Let the master know that we received some data. */
>> + XLogWalRcvSendReply();
>
> What if we didn't actually receive any new data?
The portion of the code immediately preceding what's included in the
diff guards against that, and there is a second guard in
XLogWalRcvSendReply().
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-03-23 18:43:25 | Re: Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-23 18:22:33 | Re: Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication) |