Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com> wrote:
> Stop me if I'm all wrong already, but I though we said that we should
> handle this case by decoupling what we can send to the standby and what
> it can apply. We could do this by sending the current WAL fsync'ed
> position on the master in the WAL sender protocol, either in the WAL
> itself or as out-of-bound messages, I guess.
>
> Now, this can be made safe, how to make it fast (low-latency) is yet to
> be addressed.

Yeah, that's the trick, isn't it?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company