Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 12:59 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> You can prepare a patch, but it unlikely to get much interest until you
> get agreement on what the behavior should be.

We discussed the approach on 2020's Unconference [0]. And there kind
of was an agreement.
Then I made a presentation on FOSDEM with all the details [1].
The patch had been on commitfest since 2019 [2]. There were reviewers
in the CF entry, and we kind of had an agreement.
Jeff Davis proposed a similar patch [3]. And we certainly agreed about cancels.
And now Bharath is proposing the same.

We have the interest and agreement.


Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

[0]
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon_2020_Developer_Unconference/Edge_cases_of_synchronous_replication_in_HA_solutions
[1]
https://archive.fosdem.org/2021/schedule/event/postgresql_caveats_of_replication/attachments/slides/4365/export/events/attachments/postgresql_caveats_of_replication/slides/4365/sides.pdf
[2] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/26/2402/
[3]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/6a052e81060824a8286148b1165bafedbd7c86cd.camel%40j-davis.com#415dc2f7d41b8a251b419256407bb64d