Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date: 2015-05-16 13:28:29
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRzZZUZ_yVkSyqwE7nDw1h+Lfo7g9UMjED8RGESTn0opg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> The dedicated language for multiple sync replication would be more
> extensibility as you said, but I think there are not a lot of user who
> want to or should use this.
> IMHO such a dedicated extensible feature could be extension module,
> i.g. contrib. And we could implement more simpler feature into
> PostgreSQL core with some restriction.

As proposed, this feature does not bring us really closer to quorum
commit, and AFAIK this is what we are more or less aiming at recalling
previous discussions. Particularly with the syntax proposed above, it
is not possible to do some OR conditions on subgroups of nodes, the
list of nodes is forcibly using AND because it is necessary to wait
for all the subgroups. Also, users may want to track nodes from the
same group with different application_name.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-05-16 15:58:59 Run pgindent now?
Previous Message Shigeru Hanada 2015-05-16 13:04:44 Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)