Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Josh Berkus  wrote:
> On 10/7/10 10:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> 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'
>
> This seems to abandon Simon's concept of per-transaction synchronization
> control.  That seems like such a potentially useful feature that I'm
> reluctant to abandon it just for administrative elegance.
>
> Does this work together with that in some way I can't see?

I think they work together fine.  Greg's idea is that you list the
important standbys, and a synchronization guarantee that you'd like to
have for at least one of them.  Simon's idea - at least at 10,000 feet
- is that you can take a pass on that guarantee for transactions that
don't need it.  I don't see why you can't have both.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company