From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync |
Date: | 2017-10-25 20:03:23 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSLS5SkkEQtWZQeXSkRBLbwjivhc6QrzrvugnJWBZVRHA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
<kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> + <para>
> + By default, <command>pg_receivewal</command> flushes a WAL segment's
> + contents each time a feedback message is sent to the server depending
> + on the interval of time defined by
> + <literal>--status-interval</literal>.
> IMHO, it's okay to remove the part 'depending on
> the.....<literal>--status-interval</literal>'.
This sentence is actually wrong, a feedback message is never sent with
the feedback message. You need to use either --synchronous or --slot
for that, and the docs are already clear on the matter.
> + This option causes
> + <command>pg_receivewal</command> to not issue such flushes waiting,
> Did you mean 'to not issue such flush waitings'?
By reading again the patch, "waiting" should not be here. I have
reworded the documentation completely anyway. Hopefully it is more
simple now.
> + [ 'pg_receivewal', '-D', $stream_dir, '--synchronous', '--no-sync' ],
> + 'failure if --synchronous specified without --no-sync');
> s/without/with
Right.
--
Michael
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg_receivewal_nosync_v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2017-10-25 21:59:23 | Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-10-25 18:50:00 | Timeline ID in backup_label file |