| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, 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 14:18:20 |
| Message-ID: | 4CAB33AC.9080507@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/05/2010 04:07 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> When you have one server functioning at each site you'll block until
> you get a third machine back, rather than replicating to both sites
> and remaining functional.
That's not a very likely failure scenario, but yes.
What if the admin wants to add a standby in Berlin, but still wants one
ack from each location? None of the current proposals make that simple
enough to not require adjustment in configuration.
Maybe defining something like: at least one from Berlin and at least one
from Tokyo (where Berlin and Tokyo could be defined by CIDR notation).
IMO that's closer to the admin's reality than a plain quorum but still
not as verbose as a full standby registration.
But maybe we should really defer that discussion...
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-05 14:25:19 | Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL |
| Previous Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2010-10-05 14:16:45 | Re: pg_filedump for 9.0? |