On 03/05/2014 10:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-03-05 18:26:13 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The logic was the same before the patch, but I added the XXX comment above.
Why do we sleep in increments of 1/10 of wal_sender_timeout? Originally, the
code calculated when the next wakeup
On 02/25/2014 06:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Usually that state will be reached very quickly because before
that we're writing data to the network as fast as it can be read from
disk.
I'm unimpressed. Even if that is
On 2014-03-05 18:26:13 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 02/25/2014 06:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Usually that state will be reached very quickly because before
that we're writing data to the network as fast as it
On 2014-02-25 10:45:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
In WalSndLoop() we do:
wakeEvents = WL_LATCH_SET | WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH | WL_TIMEOUT |
WL_SOCKET_READABLE;
if (pq_is_send_pending())
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
In WalSndLoop() we do:
wakeEvents = WL_LATCH_SET | WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH | WL_TIMEOUT |
WL_SOCKET_READABLE;
if (pq_is_send_pending())
wakeEvents |= WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE;
else if
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I am not sure I can follow. Why doesn't it make sense to send out the
keepalive (with replyRequested = true) when we're busy sending stuff
(which will be the case most of the time on a busy server)?
It may very well
On 2014-02-25 11:15:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I am not sure I can follow. Why doesn't it make sense to send out the
keepalive (with replyRequested = true) when we're busy sending stuff
(which will be the case
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-25 11:15:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I am not sure I can follow. Why doesn't it make sense to send out the
keepalive (with
On 2014-02-22 09:08:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
The danger is rather that *no* keepalive is sent (with requestReply =
true triggering a reply by the client) by the walsender. Try to run
pg_receivexlog against a busy server with a low walsender timeout. Since
we'll never get to sending a
On 2014-02-21 10:08:44 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
In WalSndLoop() we do:
wakeEvents = WL_LATCH_SET | WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH | WL_TIMEOUT |
WL_SOCKET_READABLE;
if (pq_is_send_pending())
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-21 10:08:44 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
I think the main reason of ping is to detect n/w break sooner.
On a busy server, wouldn't WALSender can detect it when next time it
will try to send the remaining
On 2014-02-21 19:03:29 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-21 10:08:44 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
I think the main reason of ping is to detect n/w break sooner.
On a busy server, wouldn't WALSender can detect it
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-21 19:03:29 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Well, especially on a pipelined connection, that can take a fair
bit. TCP timeouts
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
In WalSndLoop() we do:
wakeEvents = WL_LATCH_SET | WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH | WL_TIMEOUT |
WL_SOCKET_READABLE;
if (pq_is_send_pending())
wakeEvents |= WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE;
else if
Hi,
In WalSndLoop() we do:
wakeEvents = WL_LATCH_SET | WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH | WL_TIMEOUT |
WL_SOCKET_READABLE;
if (pq_is_send_pending())
wakeEvents |= WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE;
else if (wal_sender_timeout 0 !ping_sent)
{
...
if (GetCurrentTimestamp() =
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
There's no reason not
to ask for a ping when we're writing.
Is there a reason to ask for a ping? The point of keepalives is to
ensure there's some traffic on idle connections so that if the
connection is dead it
On 2014-02-14 12:55:06 +, Greg Stark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
There's no reason not
to ask for a ping when we're writing.
Is there a reason to ask for a ping? The point of keepalives is to
ensure there's some traffic on idle
On 2014-02-14 13:58:59 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-14 12:55:06 +, Greg Stark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
There's no reason not
to ask for a ping when we're writing.
Is there a reason to ask for a ping? The
18 matches
Mail list logo
