| From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Replication server timeout patch |
| Date: | 2011-02-14 22:13:31 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinSQUoMoaBJ8ASFvZ4-iuUbp5tcbSwxpZfV1WwH@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> Context diff equivalent attached.
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
> As I said before, the timeout which this patch provides doesn't work well
> when the walsender gets blocked in sending WAL. At first, we would
> need to implement a non-blocking write function as an infrastructure
> of the replication timeout, I think.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTi%3DPu2ne%3DVO-%2BCLMXLQh9y85qumLCbBP15CjnyUS%40mail.gmail.com
Interesting point...if that's accepted as required-for-commit, what
are the perceptions of the odds that, presuming I can write the code
quickly enough, that there's enough infrastructure/ports already in
postgres to allow for a non-blocking write on all our supported
platforms?
--
fdr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-02-14 22:29:09 | Re: sepgsql contrib module |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-02-14 22:02:15 | Re: Scheduled maintenance affecting gitmaster |