Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1220972793.3913.514.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 17:17 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > >> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 08:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> "Agreed"? That last restriction is a deal-breaker. > > > >> OK, I should have said *if wal_buffers are full* XLogInsert() cannot > >> advance to a new page while we are waiting to send or write. So I don't > >> think its a deal breaker. > > > > Oh, OK, that's obvious --- there's no place to put more data. > > Each WAL sender can keep at most one page locked at a time, right? So, > that should never happen if wal_buffers > 1 + n_wal_senders. Don't understand. I am referring to the logic at the top of AdvanceXLInsertBuffer(). We would need to wait for all people reading the contents of wal_buffers. Currently, there is no page locking on the WAL buffers, though I have suggested some for increasing XLogInsert() performance. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: