> >> Sorry, I'm going around in the circle. But I'd like to say again, I > >> don't think this is good idea. It prevents asynchronous > >> pg_receivexlog from fsyncing WAL data and sending feedbacks more > >> frequently at all. They are useful, for example, when we want to > >> monitor the write location of asynchronous pg_receivexlog in almost > >> realtime. But if we adopt the idea, since feedback cannot be sent > >> soon in async mode, pg_stat_replication always returns the > not-up-to-date location. > > > > Why not send a message every 10 seconds when its not sync rep? > > Or even after every write(). It's a tiny amount of network traffic anyway.
I understand that send feedback message frequently will keep pg_stat_replication up-to-date state. Are there really no needs who wants to fsync even in async mode ? I think the people who dislike Data lost will like that idea. Thought? Nevertheless in sync or async, returning feedback and executing fsync() same as like walreceiver is such a problem? -- 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
