Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 18:08 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> > The problem is not that the master streams non-fsync'd WAL, but that the
> > standby can replay that. So I'm thinking that we can send non-fsync'd WAL
> > safely if the standby makes the recovery wait until the master has fsync'd
> > WAL. That is, walsender sends not only non-fsync'd WAL but also WAL flush
> > location to walreceiver, and the standby applies only the WAL which the
> > master has already fsync'd. Thought?
>
> Yes, good thought. The patch just applied seems too much.
>
> I had the same thought, though it would mean you'd need to send two xlog
> end locations, one for write, one for fsync. Though not really clear why
> we send the "current end of WAL on the server" anyway, so maybe we can
> just alter that.
Is this a TODO?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +