| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
| Date: | 2010-10-05 18:30:34 |
| Message-ID: | 1286303434.2025.2074.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 10:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Much of the engineering we are doing centers around use cases that are
> considerably more complex than what most people will do in real life.
Why are we doing it then?
What I have proposed behaves identically to Oracle Maximum Availability
mode. Though I have extended it with per-transaction settings and have
been able to achieve that with fewer parameters as well. Most
importantly, those settings need not change following failover.
The proposed "standby.conf" registration scheme is *stricter* than
Oracle's Maximum Availability mode, yet uses an almost identical
parameter framework. The behaviour is not useful for the majority of
production databases.
Requesting sync against *all* standbys is stricter even than the highest
level of Oracle: Maximum Protection. Why do we think we need a level of
strictness higher than Oracle's maximum level? And in the first release?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-05 18:33:31 | Re: Sync Rep at Oct 5 |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-10-05 18:20:52 | Re: leaky views, yet again |