On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> 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 > > 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'm not sure if there's already enough infrastructure for a non-blocking write. But the patch which I submitted before might help to implement that. http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTinSvcdAYryNfZqd0wepyh1Pf7YX6Q0KxhZjas6a%40mail.gmail.com 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
