| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | furuyao(at)pm(dot)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, teranishih(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp |
| Subject: | Re: pg_receivexlog --status-interval add fsync feedback |
| Date: | 2014-10-17 10:59:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLSXybG8gf_ntSGO4iMmYg6yacjvO+VoF=wBjLmCbcjMg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17 October 2014 09:55, <furuyao(at)pm(dot)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>A new parameter to send feedback should be called --feedback
>>A second parameter to decide whether to fsync should be called --fsync
>
> I think keep using "--reply-fsync" and "--fsync-interval" is better than make new options.
> Thought?
We already have hot_standby_feedback, so using the name feedback is best idea.
I am suggesting that we send feedback even if we do not fsync, to
allow the master to track our progress. Hence the name of the second
parameter was just fsync.
So both names were suggested because of links to those terms already
being used for similar reasons elsewhere in Postgres.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-10-17 11:12:05 | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement |
| Previous Message | Dag-Erling Smørgrav | 2014-10-17 10:58:10 | [PATCH] add ssl_protocols configuration option |