| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Date: | 2008-12-11 21:39:20 |
| Message-ID: | 1229031560.13078.170.camel@hp_dx2400_1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 19:19 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> My new design of archiving is as follows.
So far I haven't asked about running multiple standby servers and don't
recall having seen this mentioned anywhere. Forgive me if this was
already mentioned.
The idea is that we would be able to have multiple standby servers
connecting to one primary, yes? It would be useful to have sync
replication work that it must get an acknowledgement from at least one
standby before it continues.
Or do you think we would stream to just one standby, then use the
archiver (primary or standby) to keep sending files to allow multiple
additional standby nodes?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2008-12-11 21:54:43 | Re: benchmarking the query planner |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-12-11 21:35:12 | Re: posix_fadvise v22 |