Re: Standalone synchronous master

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Standalone synchronous master
Date: 2014-01-11 16:11:15
Message-ID: 20140111161115.GJ15692@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 01:29:23PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Okay, this is one way of providing this new mode, others could be:
>
> a.
> Have just one GUC sync_standalone_mode = true|false and make
> this as PGC_POSTMASTER parameter, so that user is only
> allowed to set this mode at startup. Even if we don't want it as
> Postmaster parameter, we can mention to users that they can
> change this parameter only before server reaches current situation.
> I understand that without any alarm or some other way, it is difficult
> for user to know and change it, but I think in that case he should
> set it before server startup.
>
> b.
> On above lines, instead of boolean parameter, provide a parameter
> similar to current one such as available_synchronous_standby_names,
> setting of this should follow what I said in point a. The benefit in this
> as compare to 'a' is that it appears to be more like what we currently have.
>
> I think if we try to solve this problem by providing a way so that user
> can change it at runtime or when the problem actually occurred, it can
> make the UI more complex and difficult for us to provide a way so that
> user can be alerted on such situation. We can keep our options open
> so that if tomorrow, we can find any reasonable way, then we can
> provide it to user a mechanism for changing this at runtime, but I don't
> think it is stopping us from providing a way with which user can get the
> benefit of this mode by providing start time parameter.

I am not sure how this would work. Right now we wait for one of the
synchronous_standby_names servers to verify the writes. We need some
way of telling the system how long to wait before continuing in degraded
mode. Without a timeout and admin notification, it doesn't seem much
better than our async mode, which is what many people were complaining
about.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-01-11 16:18:41 Re: pg_upgrade & tablespaces
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-01-11 16:00:40 Re: Compiling extensions on Windows