| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-05-27 09:48:10 |
| Message-ID: | 1274953690.6203.4085.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 16:13 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Please explain what will happen when the near server is unavailable,
> > with per-standby settings. Please also explain what will happen if we
> > choose to have 4 or 5 servers to maintain performance in case of the
> > near server going down. How will we specify the failure modes?
>
> I'll try to explain that.
We've been discussing parameters and how we would define what we want to
happen in various scenarios.
You've not explained what parameters you would use, how and where they
would be set, so we aren't yet any closer to understanding what it is
your proposing.
Please explain how your proposal will work.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-27 10:21:08 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-05-27 09:39:53 | Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby |