On 2014-08-11 23:52:32 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
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.
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
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,
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
Hi Steve,
On 2014-06-30 11:40:50 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
In 9.4 we've the below block of code to walsender.c as
/*
* We only send regular messages to the client for full decoded
* transactions, but a synchronous replication and walsender shutdown
* possibly are waiting for a later
In 9.4 we've the below block of code to walsender.c as
/*
* We only send regular messages to the client for full decoded
* transactions, but a synchronous replication and walsender shutdown
* possibly are waiting for a later location. So we send pings
* containing the flush location every
