On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> - /* Let the master know that we received some data. */
>>> - XLogWalRcvSendReply();
>>> - XLogWalRcvSendHSFeedback();
>>>
>>> This change completely eliminates the difference between write_location
>>> and flush_location in pg_stat_replication. If this change is reasoable, we
>>> should get rid of write_location from pg_stat_replication since it's useless.
>>> If not, this change should be reverted. I'm not sure whether monitoring
>>> the difference between write and flush locations is useful. But I guess that
>>> someone thought so and that code was added.
>>
>> I could go either way on this but clearly we need to do one or the other.
>
> I'm not really sure why this was part of the synchronous replication
> patch, but after mulling it over I think it's probably right to rip
> out write_location completely. There shouldn't ordinarily be much of
> a gap between write location and flush location, so it's probably not
> worth the extra network overhead to keep track of it. We might need
> to re-add some form of this in the future if we have a version of
> synchronous replication that only waits for confirmation of receipt
> rather than for confirmation of flush, but we don't have that in 9.1,
> so why bother?
>
> Barring objections, I'll go do that.
I agree to get rid of write_location.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
