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

Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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 20:14:39
Message-ID: 603c8f070902251214g1509dea3x2e54d098c537429a@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> I didn't think I had proposed any such thing, although maybe I'm just
>> not remembering.  I'm pretty confused as to what the current thread is
>> all about.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg00978.php

I still don't see where I suggested removing anything.  What Heikki
suggested, and I agreed with, was adding something: integrated base
backup.

> I don't think anyone who argued in favour of removal of existing system
> was aware that we'd lose anything as a result. I think everybody
> supports the easier-if-possible sentiment that Heikki was expressing; I
> just don't want to let that be seen as agreement to remove, by default,
> at a later time.

I'm still totally unclear as to what you think anyone might, at some
point in the future, propose to remove.

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.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2009-02-25 20:39:55
Subject: Hot standby, running xacts, subtransactions
Previous:From: Koichi SuzukiDate: 2009-02-25 20:03:22
Subject: Re: V4 of PITR performance improvement for 8.4

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