> On 09/05/2014 08:51 AM, furu...@pm.nttdata.co.jp wrote: > >>> Thanks for the review! > >>> > >>> I understand the attention message wasn't appropriate. > >>> > >>> To report the write location, even If you do not specify a > >>> replication > >> slot. > >>> So the fix only appended messages. > >>> > >>> There was a description of the flush location section of '-S' > >>> option, but I intended to catch eye more and added a message. > >>> > >>> Is it better to make specification of the -S option indispensable? > >> > >> The patch cannot be applied to HEAD cleanly. Could you update the > patch? > > > > Thank you for pointing out. > > Updated the patch. > > I don't understand what this patch does. When would you want to use the > new --reply-fsync option? Is there any reason *not* to use it? In other > words, do we need an option for this, couldn't you just always send the > feedback message after fsync?
Thanks for the comment. --reply-fsync option is intended for use in synchronous mode. By specifying -F option and --slot option, process calls fsync() when it received the WAL, and flush location would be set in feedback message. Interval of sending feedback message depends on -s option in this state, so in the case of synchronous mode, waiting for feedback message would occure. therefore, --reply-fsync option is necessary. because it can send the feedback message after fsync without waiting for the interval of -s option. The reason for not sending the feedback message after fsync without waiting for the interval of -s option always, is to answer the needs who want to use fsync only (NOT using synchronous mode). Regards, -- Furuya Osamu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
