Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)

From: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)
Date: 2010-10-08 08:29:56
Message-ID: 4CAED684.5070304@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:
> Yes, let's please just implement something simple and get it
> committed. k = 1. Two GUCs (synchronous_standbys = name, name, name
> and synchronous_waitfor = none|recv|fsync|apply), SUSET so you can
> change it per txn. Done. We can revise it *the day after it's
> committed* if we agree on how. And if we *don't* agree, then we can
> ship it and we still win.
>
I like the idea of something simple committed first, and am trying to
understand what's said above.

k = 1 : wait for only one ack
two gucs: does this mean configurable in postgresql.conf at the master,
and changable with SET commands on the master depending on options? Are
both gucs mutable?
synchronous_standbys: I'm wondering if this registration is necessary in
this simple setup. What are the named used for? Could they be removed?
Should they also be configured at each standby?
synchronous_waitfor: If configured on the master, how is it updated to
the standbys? What does being able to configure 'none' mean? k = 0? I
smell a POLA violation here.

regards
Yeb Havinga

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Markus Wanner 2010-10-08 08:30:35 Re: Issues with Quorum Commit
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-10-08 08:27:11 Re: Issues with Quorum Commit