Re: "caught_up" status in walsender - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: "caught_up" status in walsender
Date
Msg-id 26798.1275578767@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to "caught_up" status in walsender  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> On further contemplation, it seems like the protocol needs another field
> besides that: each record should also carry a boolean indicating whether
> walsender.c thinks it is currently "caught up", ie the record carries
> all WAL data up to the current end of WAL.

Actually, there's a better way to do that: let's have the record carry
not just a boolean but the actual current end-of-WAL LSN.  The receiver
could then not just determine "am I behind" but find out *how far*
behind it is, and thereby perhaps adjust its behavior in more subtle
ways than just a binary on/off fashion.

(Actually doing anything like that is material for future work, of
course, but I think we should try to get the SR protocol right now.)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature