Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 18:08 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > The problem is not that the master streams non-fsync'd WAL, but that the > > standby can replay that. So I'm thinking that we can send non-fsync'd WAL > > safely if the standby makes the recovery wait until the master has fsync'd > > WAL. That is, walsender sends not only non-fsync'd WAL but also WAL flush > > location to walreceiver, and the standby applies only the WAL which the > > master has already fsync'd. Thought? > > Yes, good thought. The patch just applied seems too much. > > I had the same thought, though it would mean you'd need to send two xlog > end locations, one for write, one for fsync. Though not really clear why > we send the "current end of WAL on the server" anyway, so maybe we can > just alter that.
Is this a TODO? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
