| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
| Date: | 2010-10-05 14:00:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1286287200.2025.1386.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 08:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 12:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> >>> Quorum commit, even with configurable vote weights, can't handle a
> >> >>> requirement that a particular commit be replicated to (A || B) && (C
> >> >>> || D).
> >> >> Good point.
> >
> > Asking for quorum_commit = 3 would cover that requirement.
> >
> > Not exactly as requested, but in a way that is both simpler to express
> > and requires no changes to configuration after failover. ISTM better to
> > have a single parameter than 5 separate configuration files, with
> > behaviour that the community would not easily be able to validate.
>
> That's just not the same thing.
In what important ways does it differ? In both cases, no reply will be
received until both sites have confirmed receipt.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-10-05 14:07:02 | Re: is sync rep stalled? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-05 13:58:00 | Re: ALTER DATABASE RENAME with HS/SR |