Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync

2017-10-29 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Okay. Here is an updated patch incorporating those comments. > > Committed with a little wordsmithing on the documentation.

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync

2017-10-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Okay. Here is an updated patch incorporating those comments. Committed with a little wordsmithing on the documentation. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync

2017-10-28 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> This sentence is actually wrong, a

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync

2017-10-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> This sentence is actually wrong, a feedback message is never sent with >> the feedback message. > > Eh? "A feedback message is

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync

2017-10-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > This sentence is actually wrong, a feedback message is never sent with > the feedback message. Eh? I think this looks basically fine, though I'd omit the short option for it. There are only so many letters in

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync

2017-10-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > + > +By default, pg_receivewal flushes a WAL segment's > +contents each time a feedback message is sent to the server depending > +on the interval of time defined by > +

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync

2017-10-25 Thread Kuntal Ghosh
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > After thinking a bit on the subject, I have decided to submit a patch > to do $subject. This makes pg_receivewal more consistent with > pg_basebackup. This option is mainly useful for testing,

[HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync

2017-10-24 Thread Michael Paquier
Hi all, After thinking a bit on the subject, I have decided to submit a patch to do $subject. This makes pg_receivewal more consistent with pg_basebackup. This option is mainly useful for testing, something that becomes way more doable since support for --endpos has been added. Unsurprisingly,