On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dfonta...@hi-media.com> wrote: > Stop me if I'm all wrong already, but I though we said that we should > handle this case by decoupling what we can send to the standby and what > it can apply. We could do this by sending the current WAL fsync'ed > position on the master in the WAL sender protocol, either in the WAL > itself or as out-of-bound messages, I guess. > > Now, this can be made safe, how to make it fast (low-latency) is yet to > be addressed.
Yeah, that's the trick, isn't it? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
