Re: Configuring synchronous replication
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1284728152.1733.4480.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Configuring synchronous replication (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Configuring synchronous replication
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 21:20 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > The only thing standby registration allows you to do is know whether > > there was supposed to be a standby there, but yet it isn't there now. I > > don't see that point as being important because it seems strange to me > > to want to wait for a standby that ought to be there, but isn't anymore. > > According to what I heard, some people want to guarantee that all the > transactions are *always* written in *all* the synchronous standbys. > IOW, they want to keep the transaction waiting until it has been written > in all the synchronous standbys. Standby registration is required to > support such a use case. Without the registration, the master cannot > determine whether the transaction has been written in all the synchronous > standbys. You don't need standby registration at all. You can do that with a single parameter, already proposed: quorum_commit = N. But most people said they didn't want it. If they do we can put it back later. I don't think we're getting anywhere here. I just don't see any *need* to have it. Some people might *want* to set things up that way, and if that's true, that's enough for me to agree with them. The trouble is, I know some people have said they *want* to set it in the standby and we definitely *need* to set it somewhere. After this discussion, I think "both" is easily done and quite cool. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: