On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > If you insist, I'll work out a patch to send a signal to startup process > after every fsync(), but it really doesn't seem very important given > that there's always a delay there anyway.
Agreed. Even if we get rid of the delay of startup process, it would still take time until the committed transaction has become visible in the standby. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
