Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)
Date: 2010-10-05 15:03:09
Message-ID: 4CAB3E2D.8000108@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> Another check: does specifying replication by server in such detail mean
> we can't specify robustness at the transaction level? If we gave up that
> feature, it would be a greatloss for performance tuning.

It's orthagonal. The kinds of configurations we're talking about simply
define what it will mean when you commit a transaction "with synch".

However, I think we're getting way the heck away from how far we really
want to go for 9.1. Can I point out to people that synch rep is going
to involve a fair bit of testing and debugging, and that maybe we don't
want to try to implement The World's Most Configurable Standby Spec as a
first step?

--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-10-05 15:06:47 Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-10-05 14:56:57 Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)