On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Also, to be frank, I think we ought to be putting more effort into
>>> another patch in this same area, specifically Thomas Munro's causal
>>> reads patch. I think a lot of people today are trying to use
>>> synchronous replication to build load-balancing clusters and avoid the
>>> problem where you write some data and then read back stale data from a
>>> standby server. Of course, our current synchronous replication
>>> facilities make no such guarantees - his patch does, and I think
>>> that's pretty important. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do this
>>> too, of course.
>>
>> Yeah, sure. Each one of those patches is trying to solve a different
>> problem where Postgres is deficient, here we'd like to be sure a
>> commit WAL record is correctly flushed on multiple standbys, while the
>> patch of Thomas is trying to ensure that there is no need to scan for
>> the replay position of a standby using some GUC parameters and a
>> validation/sanity layer in syncrep.c to do that. Surely the patch of
>> this thread has got more attention than Thomas', and both of them have
>> merits and try to address real problems. FWIW, the patch of Thomas is
>> a topic that I find rather interesting, and I am planning to look at
>> it as well, perhaps for next CF or even before that. We'll see how
>> other things move on.
>
> Attached first version dedicated language patch (document patch is not yet.)
Thanks for the patch! Will review it.
I think that it's time to write the documentation patch.
Though I've not read the patch yet, I found that your patch
changed s_s_names so that it rejects non-alphabet character
like *, according to my simple test. It should accept any
application_name which we can use.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao