From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(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 19:18:01 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=U_p9-JK6tqoVucCMErO6ROS+LSm7T6ExQeai0@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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?
Well, then you couldn't have one strictly synchronous standby and one
asynchronous standby.
> 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?
I'm not totally sure. I think we could probably avoid removing that
with careful detailed design.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-07 19:19:15 | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-10-07 18:53:56 | a few small bugs in plpgsql |