| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-05-25 16:32:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1274805155.6203.2126.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 18:29 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> If people agree that the above is our roadmap, implementing
> "per-standby" first makes sense, and then we can implement "per-session"
> GUC later.
IMHO "per-standby" sounds simple, but is dangerously simplistic,
explained on another part of the thread.
We need to think clearly about failure modes and how they will be
handled. Failure modes and edge cases completely govern the design here.
"All running smoothly" isn't a major concern and so it appears that the
user interface can be done various ways.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-25 16:36:42 | Re: recovery getting interrupted is not so unusual as it used to be |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-25 16:28:56 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |