On 2014-08-11 23:52:32 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-08-11 17:22:27 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
> > 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
On 2014-08-11 17:22:27 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
> 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 simpl
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 do
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 &&
Hi Steve,
On 2014-06-30 11:40:50 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
> In 9.4 we've the below block of code to walsender.c as
>
> /*
> * We only send regular messages to the client for full decoded
> * transactions, but a synchronous replication and walsender shutdown
> * possibly are waiting for a la
In 9.4 we've the below block of code to walsender.c as
/*
* We only send regular messages to the client for full decoded
* transactions, but a synchronous replication and walsender shutdown
* possibly are waiting for a later location. So we send pings
* containing the flush location every no
