Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)" <niranjan(dot)k(at)nsn(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches
Date: 2009-02-25 21:11:58
Message-ID: 49A5B41E.6060704@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>   
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>     
>>> I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii
>>> Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment
>>> from Heikki:
>>>
>>> # IMHO, the synchronous replication isn't in such good shape, I'm
>>> afraid. I've said
>>> # this before, but I'm not happy with the "built from spare parts"
>>> nature of it. You
>>> # shouldn't have to configure an archive, file-based log shipping using rsync or
>>> # whatever, and pg_standby. All that is in addition to the direct
>>> connection between
>>> # master and slave. The slave really should be able to just connect to
>>> the master, and
>>> # download all the WAL it needs directly. That's a huge usability
>>> issue if left as is,
>>> # but requires very large architectural changes to fix.
>>>       
>> I believe so, see second bullet point in:
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/3f0b79eb0902240751t13231593g17fbef70664d4444@mail.gmail.com
>>     
>
> That is exactly what I am against. Note the words "get rid of".
>
> This prevents parallel data transfer, use of split mirrors and various
> other techniques. It sounds neater, but it implies removal of useful
> features.
>   

OK, so let's assume that we'll provide an extra facility that doesn't 
take anything away but which provides for close to zero config setup for 
the simple case. Frankly, that's what the vast majority of people want, 
in my experience.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2009-02-25 21:15:50
Subject: Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2009-02-25 21:08:41
Subject: Re: Hot standby, running xacts, subtransactions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group