From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
Date: | 2010-10-07 18:33:03 |
Message-ID: | 4CAE125F.2030204@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I think they work together fine. Greg's idea is that you list the
> important standbys, and a synchronization guarantee that you'd like to
> have for at least one of them. Simon's idea - at least at 10,000 feet
> - is that you can take a pass on that guarantee for transactions that
> don't need it. I don't see why you can't have both.
So, two things:
1) This version of Standby Registration seems to add One More Damn Place
You Need To Configure Standby (OMDPYNTCS) without adding any
functionality you couldn't get *without* having a list on the master.
Can someone explain to me what functionality is added by this approach
vs. not having a list on the master at all?
2) I see Simon's approach where you can designate not just synch/asynch,
but synch *mode* per session to be valuable. I can imagine having
transactions I just want to "ack" vs. transactions I want to "apply"
according to application logic (e.g. customer personal information vs.
financial transactions). This approach would still seem to remove that
functionality. Does it?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2010-10-07 18:38:17 | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-07 18:31:53 | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |