> -----Original Message----- > > > Flush is not performed every time write, it is performed > > > collectively like walrecever. > > > > I only glanced at this, but afaics you're only flushing at the end > > every WAL segment. That will result in absolutely horrible performance, > right? > > Walreceiver does flush more frequently than that. It basically syncs > > every chunk of received WAL... > > IMO the completion of the write loop was completion of received WAL. > And Walreceiver same. > > I confirm it about the flush position. As you say,Walreceiver does flush more frequently than that. However, it seems difficult to apply as same way. So, I have tried a different approach.
1. select () time-out 100msec setting. 2. flush check is time-out of the select (). 3. wirte() only when flush. I think this is what cause the problem, but I don't have some good idea to solve it. Can someone please advise me? Regards, -- Furuya Osamu
pg_receivexlog-add-synchronous-mode-v2.patch
Description: pg_receivexlog-add-synchronous-mode-v2.patch
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
