| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v19 |
| Date: | 2011-03-05 16:31:12 |
| Message-ID: | 4033E806-F85B-4C86-BC8B-FDE15B7A8C16@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mar 5, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm not in favour.
>>
>> If the user has a preferred order, they can specify it. If there is no
>> preferred order, how will we maintain that order?
>>
>> What are the rules for maintaining this arbitrary order?
>
> Probably what Robert, Yeb and I think is to leave the current
> sync standby in sync mode until either its connection is closed
> or higher priority standby connects. No complicated rule is
> required.
>
> To do that, how about tracking which standby is currently in
> sync mode? Each walsender checks whether its priority is
> higher than that of current sync one, and if yes, it takes over.
That is precisely what I would expect to happen, and IMHO quite useful.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2011-03-05 16:42:13 | Re: Sync Rep v19 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-03-05 16:23:03 | Re: Alpha4 release blockers (was Re: wrapping up this CommitFest) |