On 2014-08-11 17:22:27 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 07/14/2014 01:19 PM, Steve Singer wrote:
> >On 07/06/2014 10:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>Hi Steve,
> >
> >>Right. I thought about this for a while, and I think we should change
> >>two things. For one, don't request replies here. It's simply not needed,
> >>as this isn't dealing with timeouts. For another don't just check
> >>->flush
> >>< sentPtr but also && ->write < sentPtr. The reason we're sending these
> >>feedback messages is to inform the 'logical standby' that there's been
> >>WAL activity which it can't see because they don't correspond to
> >>anything that's logically decoded (e.g. vacuum stuff).
> >>Would that suit your needs?
> >>
> >>Greetings,
> >
> >Yes I think that will work for me.
> >I tested with the attached patch that I think  does what you describe and
> >it seems okay.
> >
> >
> Any feedback on this?  Do we want that change for 9.4, or do we want
> something else?

I plan to test and apply it in the next few days. Digging myself from
under stuff from before my holiday right now...


Andres Freund

 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to