On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 06:01:23PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > To me it's architecturally the completely wrong direction. We should move in > the *other* direction, i.e. allow WAL to be sent to standbys before the > primary has finished flushing it locally. Which requires similar > infrastructure to what we're discussing here.
I think this is a good point. After all, WALRead() has the following comment: * XXX probably this should be improved to suck data directly from the * WAL buffers when possible. Once you have all the infrastructure for that, holding back WAL replay on async standbys based on synchronous replication might be relatively easy. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
