Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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.
Oh, I see.
If a slave falls behind, how does it catch up? I guess you're saying
that it can't fall behind, because the master will block before that
happens. Also in asynchronous replication? And what about when the slave
is first set up, and needs to catch up with the master?
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com