From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Synchronous replication |
Date: | 2010-07-27 13:17:15 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinxi4NCR0xa5tQ=v2uddearnwhk+k1f9GZqQb2r@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Is there a reason not to send the signal in XlogFlush itself, so it would be
> called at
>
> CreateCheckPoint(), EndPrepare(), FlushBuffer(),
> RecordTransactionAbortPrepared(), RecordTransactionCommit(),
> RecordTransactionCommitPrepared(), RelationTruncate(),
> SlruPhysicalWritePage(), write_relmap_file(), WriteTruncateXlogRec(), and
> xact_redo_commit().
Yes, it's because there is no need to send WAL immediately in other
than the following functions:
* EndPrepare()
* RecordTransactionAbortPrepared()
* RecordTransactionCommit()
* RecordTransactionCommitPrepared()
Some functions call XLogFlush() to follow the basic WAL rule. In the
standby, WAL records are always flushed to disk prior to any corresponding
data-file change. So, we don't need to replicate the result of XLogFlush()
immediately for the WAL rule.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-07-27 13:53:45 | Re: Synchronous replication |
Previous Message | Joshua Tolley | 2010-07-27 13:12:33 | Re: Synchronous replication |