On 08/31/2016 07:13 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes that's the case. If for example I have a set of slaves like that:
> application_name | replay_delta | sync_priority | sync_state
> ------------------+--------------+---------------+------------
> node1 | 0 | 1 | sync
> node1 | 0 | 1 | sync
> node1 | 0 | 1 | potential
> node2 | 0 | 2 | potential
> node2 | 0 | 2 | potential
> node2 | 0 | 2 | potential
> node3 | 0 | 0 | async
> node3 | 0 | 0 | async
> node3 | 0 | 0 | async
> =# show synchronous_standby_names ;
> synchronous_standby_names
> ---------------------------
> 2(node1, node2)
>
> You'd need to have the confirmation to come from two nodes with node1
> as application_name because those have the higher priority in the
> list.
So, I have to say, this doesn't *feel* like a major press-worthy feature
yet. It will be in 10, but is it right now?
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)