Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication
От | Markus Wanner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 48C50083.2090509@bluegap.ch обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication (ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > Are there any better idea to share one socket connection between > backends (and bgwriter)? The connections could be established after > fork() from postmaster, and number of them could be two or more. > This is one of the most complicated part of synchronous log shipping. > Switching-processes apporach like b) is just one idea for it. I fear I'm repeating myself, but I've had the same problem for Postgres-R and solved it with an internal message passing infrastructure which I've simply called imessages. It requires only standard Postgres shared memory, signals and locking and should thus be pretty portable. In simple benchmarks, it's not quite as efficient as unix pipes, but doesn't require as many file descriptors, is independent of the parent-child relations of processes, maintains message borders and it is more portable (I hope). It could certainly be improved WRT efficiency and could theoretically even beat Unix pipes, because it involves less copying of data and less syscalls. It has not been reviewed nor commented much. I'd still appreciate that. Regards Markus Wanner
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: