On 02/09/10 15:03, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 19:24 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> That requirement falls out from the handling of disconnected standbys. If a
>>> standby is not connected, what does the master do with commits? If the
>>> answer is anything else than acknowledge them to the client immediately, as
>>> if the standby never existed, the master needs to know what standby servers
>>> exist. Otherwise it can't know if all the standbys are connected or not.
>> Thanks. I understood why the registration is required.
> I don't. There is a simpler design that does not require registration.
> Please explain why we need registration, with an explanation that does
> not presume it as a requirement.
Please explain how you would implement "don't acknowledge commits until
they're replicated to all standbys" without standby registration.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-09-02 12:44:27|
|Subject: Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry|
|Previous:||From: Michael Haggerty||Date: 2010-09-02 12:13:28|
|Subject: Re: git: uh-oh|