Re: DRAFT 9.6 release

On 09/01/2016 04:56 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes, the case described by Josh is rather narrow as most users are not
> going to use the same application_name for multiple standbys. Combined
> with synchronous_commit = remote_apply what you actually have is the
> guarantee that WAL has been applied synchronously to multiple nodes,
> allowing for read balancing.

It's not narrow if you think of it this way:


2 ( north_carolina, oregon, californa )


That is, if each pseudo-group is a data center, then that arrangement
makes a lot of sense.  Oh, well, waiting for 10.


-- 
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)