On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 14:13 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> wrote: > >> Context diff equivalent attached. > > > > Thanks for the patch! > > > > As I said before, the timeout which this patch provides doesn't work well > > when the walsender gets blocked in sending WAL. At first, we would > > need to implement a non-blocking write function as an infrastructure > > of the replication timeout, I think. > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTi%3DPu2ne%3DVO-%2BCLMXLQh9y85qumLCbBP15CjnyUS%40mail.gmail.com
I wasn't aware that had been raised before. Thanks for noting it again. I guess that's why you thought "wait forever" was a good idea ;-) > Interesting point...if that's accepted as required-for-commit, what > are the perceptions of the odds that, presuming I can write the code > quickly enough, that there's enough infrastructure/ports already in > postgres to allow for a non-blocking write on all our supported > platforms? I'd like to see what you come up with. I would rate that as important, though not essential for sync replication. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
