On 07/14/2014 01:19 PM, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 07/06/2014 10:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>
>> Right. I thought about this for a while, and I think we should change
>> two things. For one, don't request replies here. It's simply not needed,
>> as this isn't dealing with timeouts. For another don't just check
>> ->flush
>> < sentPtr but also && ->write < sentPtr. The reason we're sending these
>> feedback messages is to inform the 'logical standby' that there's been
>> WAL activity which it can't see because they don't correspond to
>> anything that's logically decoded (e.g. vacuum stuff).
>> Would that suit your needs?
>>
>> Greetings,
>
> Yes I think that will work for me.
> I tested with the attached patch that I think does what you describe
> and it seems okay.
>
>
Any feedback on this? Do we want that change for 9.4, or do we want
something else?
>
>> Andres Freund
>>
>
>
>