On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Let me check that I got this right, and add some details to make it more
> concrete: Each standby is given a name. It can be something like "boston1"
> or "testserver". It does *not* have to be unique across all standby servers.
> In the master, you have a list of important, synchronous, nodes that must
> acknowledge each commit before it is acknowledged to the client.
>
> The standby name is a GUC in the standby's configuration file:
>
> standby_name='bostonserver'
>
> The list of important nodes is also a GUC, in the master's configuration
> file:
>
> synchronous_standbys='bostonserver, oxfordserver'
+1.
It definitely covers the scenarios I want.
And even allows the ones I don't want, and don't understand either ;-)
I and personally, I'ld *love* it if the streaming replication protocol
was adjusted to that every streaming WAL client reported back their
role and recive/fsync/replay positions as part of the protocol
(allowing role and positions to be something "NULL"able/empty/0). I
think Simon demonstrated that the overhead to report it isn't high.
Again, in the deployments I'm wanting, the "slave" isn't a PG server,
but something like Magnus's stream-to-archive, so I can't query the
slave to see how far behind it is.
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.