Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

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.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com