From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
Date: | 2011-02-28 21:22:24 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=qJ1KSfvJjS_+YG8Wxv7nPTFUDUws9N6+VoaR-@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 23:26 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> I believe the problem is that the definition of IsOnSyncRepQueue is
>> bogus, so that the loop in SyncRepWaitOnQueue always takes the first
>> branch.
>
> Sorry, don't see that. Jaime/Yeb fix applied.
>
>> It was a little confusing to me setting this up that setting only
>> synchronous_replication did nothing; I had to also set
>> synchronous_standby_names. We might need a cross-check there.
>
> I'm inclined to make an empty "synchronous_standby_names" mean that any
> standby can become the sync standby. That seems more useful behaviour
> and avoids the need for a cross-check (what exactly would we check??).
Hmm, that is a little surprising but might be reasonable. My thought
was that we would check that if synchronous_replication=on then
synchronous_standbys must be non-empty. I think there ought to be
some way for the admin to turn synchronous replication *off* though,
in a way that an individual user cannot override. How will we do
that?
> Docs changed: git://github.com/simon2ndQuadrant/postgres.git
I'm hoping you're going to post an updated patch once the current rash
of updates is all done.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | daveg | 2011-02-28 21:28:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2011-02-28 21:13:47 | Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ... |