From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
Date: | 2017-07-28 05:24:02 |
Message-ID: | 20170728052402.GA2611783@rfd.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:55:37AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 06/04/17 03:51, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >>>> Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We should work on
> >>>> and complete them until the release.
> >>>>
> >>>> (1)
> >>>> Which synchronous replication method, priority or quorum, should be
> >>>> chosen when neither FIRST nor ANY is specified in s_s_names? Right now,
> >>>> a priority-based sync replication is chosen for keeping backward
> >>>> compatibility. However some hackers argued to change this decision
> >>>> so that a quorum commit is chosen because they think that most users
> >>>> prefer to a quorum.
> >> The items (1) and (3) are not bugs. So I don't think that they need to be
> >> resolved before the beta release. After the feature freeze, many users
> >> will try and play with many new features including quorum-based syncrep.
> >> Then if many of them complain about (1) and (3), we can change the code
> >> at that timing. So we need more time that users can try the feature.
> >
> > I've moved (1) to a new section for things to revisit during beta. If someone
> > feels strongly that the current behavior is Wrong and must change, speak up as
> > soon as you reach that conclusion. Absent such arguments, the behavior won't
> > change.
> >
>
> I was one of the people who said in original thread that I think the
> default behavior should change to quorum and I am still of that opinion.
This item appears under "decisions to recheck mid-beta". If anyone is going
to push for a change here, now is the time.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-07-28 05:28:33 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-07-28 05:08:57 | Re: segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call |