On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 18:56 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > The Hot Standby patch can be considered v9 of the infrastructure patch,
> > as mentioned on the wiki.
> >
> > I'll look to separate them so we review the correct code.
>
> Ok, I started reviewing the other v9
Simon Riggs wrote:
The Hot Standby patch can be considered v9 of the infrastructure patch,
as mentioned on the wiki.
I'll look to separate them so we review the correct code.
Ok, I started reviewing the other v9
(http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
I'll look at othe
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 15:44 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> >> This is the whole patch of Synch Rep against head. This also contain
> >> "Infrastructure changes for recover" patch by Simon because I'd like to
> >> make walreceiver work in consistent recovery mode.
> >
> >
Robert Haas wrote:
This is the whole patch of Synch Rep against head. This also contain
"Infrastructure changes for recover" patch by Simon because I'd like to
make walreceiver work in consistent recovery mode.
Given that both this patch and Simon's hot standby patches need this
infrastructure,
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> Attached is the latest version of Synch Rep patch.
>
> Why do we need a separate XLogsndRqst variable in shared memory? Don't we
> always want to send the WAL up to the same point as we flush i
> This is the whole patch of Synch Rep against head. This also contain
> "Infrastructure changes for recover" patch by Simon because I'd like to
> make walreceiver work in consistent recovery mode.
Given that both this patch and Simon's hot standby patches need this
infrastructure, it seems like i
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 19:23 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 19:00 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Why do we need a separate XLogsndRqst variable in shared memory? Don't
> >> we always want to send the WAL up to the same point as we flush it?
>
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 19:00 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Why do we need a separate XLogsndRqst variable in shared memory? Don't
we always want to send the WAL up to the same point as we flush it?
If we're doing synch rep and we're committing.
You flush and send the WAL
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 19:00 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Attached is the latest version of Synch Rep patch.
>
> Why do we need a separate XLogsndRqst variable in shared memory? Don't
> we always want to send the WAL up to the same point as we flush it?
If we're doin
Fujii Masao wrote:
Attached is the latest version of Synch Rep patch.
Why do we need a separate XLogsndRqst variable in shared memory? Don't
we always want to send the WAL up to the same point as we flush it?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via p
10 matches
Mail list logo
