On 2014-08-11 17:22:27 -0400, Steve Singer wrote: > On 07/14/2014 01:19 PM, Steve Singer wrote: > >On 07/06/2014 10:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >>Hi Steve, > > > >>Right. I thought about this for a while, and I think we should change > >>two things. For one, don't request replies here. It's simply not needed, > >>as this isn't dealing with timeouts. For another don't just check > >>->flush > >>< sentPtr but also && ->write < sentPtr. The reason we're sending these > >>feedback messages is to inform the 'logical standby' that there's been > >>WAL activity which it can't see because they don't correspond to > >>anything that's logically decoded (e.g. vacuum stuff). > >>Would that suit your needs? > >> > >>Greetings, > > > >Yes I think that will work for me. > >I tested with the attached patch that I think does what you describe and > >it seems okay. > > > > > > > Any feedback on this? Do we want that change for 9.4, or do we want > something else?
I plan to test and apply it in the next few days. Digging myself from under stuff from before my holiday right now... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
