Re: [HACKERS] Update of replication/README
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: The attached patch updates replication/README to reflect current walsender/walreceiver behavior. It doesn't include any description about sync rep. That would need to be added later. Hrm. What about this hunk? -Each walsender allocates an entry from the WalSndCtl array, and advertises -there how far it has streamed WAL already. This is used at checkpoints, to -avoid recycling WAL that hasn't been streamed to a slave yet. However, -that doesn't stop such WAL from being recycled when the connection is not -established. +Each walsender allocates an entry from the WalSndCtl array, and tracks +information about replication progress. User can monitor them via +statistics views. Is the deleted text not (or no longer) true? Yes. But, in fact, the deleted text is false in not only 9.1dev but also 9.0. IIRC, though my original patch of streaming replication prevented checkpoint from recycling unsent WAL files, that behavior was cut out and we introduced wal_keep_segments parameter before release of 9.0. But unfortunately I had not noticed that text until I read README yesterday... OK, committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Update of replication/README
Hi, The attached patch updates replication/README to reflect current walsender/walreceiver behavior. It doesn't include any description about sync rep. That would need to be added later. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center replication_readme_v1.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Update of replication/README
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: The attached patch updates replication/README to reflect current walsender/walreceiver behavior. It doesn't include any description about sync rep. That would need to be added later. Hrm. What about this hunk? -Each walsender allocates an entry from the WalSndCtl array, and advertises -there how far it has streamed WAL already. This is used at checkpoints, to -avoid recycling WAL that hasn't been streamed to a slave yet. However, -that doesn't stop such WAL from being recycled when the connection is not -established. +Each walsender allocates an entry from the WalSndCtl array, and tracks +information about replication progress. User can monitor them via +statistics views. Is the deleted text not (or no longer) true? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Update of replication/README
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: The attached patch updates replication/README to reflect current walsender/walreceiver behavior. It doesn't include any description about sync rep. That would need to be added later. Hrm. What about this hunk? -Each walsender allocates an entry from the WalSndCtl array, and advertises -there how far it has streamed WAL already. This is used at checkpoints, to -avoid recycling WAL that hasn't been streamed to a slave yet. However, -that doesn't stop such WAL from being recycled when the connection is not -established. +Each walsender allocates an entry from the WalSndCtl array, and tracks +information about replication progress. User can monitor them via +statistics views. Is the deleted text not (or no longer) true? Yes. But, in fact, the deleted text is false in not only 9.1dev but also 9.0. IIRC, though my original patch of streaming replication prevented checkpoint from recycling unsent WAL files, that behavior was cut out and we introduced wal_keep_segments parameter before release of 9.0. But unfortunately I had not noticed that text until I read README yesterday... 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
