On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> - /* Let the master know that we received some data. >>> */ >>> - XLogWalRcvSendReply(); >>> - XLogWalRcvSendHSFeedback(); >>> >>> This change completely eliminates the difference between write_location >>> and flush_location in pg_stat_replication. If this change is reasoable, we >>> should get rid of write_location from pg_stat_replication since it's >>> useless. >>> If not, this change should be reverted. I'm not sure whether monitoring >>> the difference between write and flush locations is useful. But I guess that >>> someone thought so and that code was added. >> >> I could go either way on this but clearly we need to do one or the other. > > I'm not really sure why this was part of the synchronous replication > patch, but after mulling it over I think it's probably right to rip > out write_location completely. There shouldn't ordinarily be much of > a gap between write location and flush location, so it's probably not > worth the extra network overhead to keep track of it. We might need > to re-add some form of this in the future if we have a version of > synchronous replication that only waits for confirmation of receipt > rather than for confirmation of flush, but we don't have that in 9.1, > so why bother? > > Barring objections, I'll go do that.
I agree to get rid of write_location. 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
