On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> I also agree with the general idea of trying to break it into smaller >> parts - even if they only provide small parts each on it's own. That >> also makes it easier to get an overview of exactly how much is left, >> to see where to focus. > > And on that note, here's the rest of the patch back, rebased over what > I posted ~90 minutes ago.
Though I haven't read the patch enough yet, I have one review comment. While walsender uses the non-blocking I/O function (i.e., pq_getbyte_if_available) for the receive, it uses the blocking one (i.e., pq_flush, etc) for the send. So, sync_rep_timeout_server would not work well when the walsender gets blocked in sending WAL. This is one the problems which I struggled with when I created the SyncRep patch before. I think that we need to introduce the non-blocking send function for the replication timeout. 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
