On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> The former seems to be more useful, but triples the number of ACK >> from the standby. I'm not sure whether its overhead is ignorable, >> especially when the distance between the master and the standby is >> very long. > > No, it doesn't. There is no requirement for additional messages. It just > adds 16 bytes onto the reply message, maybe 24. If there is a noticeable > overhead from that, shoot me.
The reply message would be sent at least three times every WAL chunk, i.e., when the standby has received, synced and replayed it. So ISTM that additional messagings happen. Though I'm not sure if this really harms the performance... You'd like to choose async/recv/fsync/replay on a per-transaction basis rather than async/sync? Even when async is chosen as the synchronization level in standbys.conf, it can be changed to other level in transaction? If so, the standby has to send the reply even if async is chosen and most replies might be ignored in the master. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
