Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > Well, it would still be useful, as it would shorten the delay. But yeah, > there's a delay in asynchronous replication anyway, so we decided to > keep it simple and just poll. It's not ideal and definitely needs to be > revisited for synchronous mode in the future. Same for walsenders.
Stop me if I misunderstood the case at hand, but while waiting some more for having a sizeable batch to send makes a lot of sense to me, waiting on the receiver side when there's some work to do will only forbids a slow slave to keep up with the load, increasing lag artificially. I'm used to asynchronous replication where you're never allowed to rest if some batch is ready for you to process. Regards, -- dim -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
