Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1286303434.2025.2074.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 10:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Much of the engineering we are doing centers around use cases that are > considerably more complex than what most people will do in real life. Why are we doing it then? What I have proposed behaves identically to Oracle Maximum Availability mode. Though I have extended it with per-transaction settings and have been able to achieve that with fewer parameters as well. Most importantly, those settings need not change following failover. The proposed "standby.conf" registration scheme is *stricter* than Oracle's Maximum Availability mode, yet uses an almost identical parameter framework. The behaviour is not useful for the majority of production databases. Requesting sync against *all* standbys is stricter even than the highest level of Oracle: Maximum Protection. Why do we think we need a level of strictness higher than Oracle's maximum level? And in the first release? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: