| From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Mithun Cy' <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |
| Date: | 2016-11-11 06:25:13 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F63F341@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Mithun Cy
> Yes this patch will only address failover to new master, values "master"
> and "any" appeared sufficient for that case.
Do you mean that unlike pgJDBC "standby" and "prefer_standby" are useless, or they are useful but you don't have time to implement it and want to do it in the near future? Do you mind if I do it if time permits me? I think they are useful without load balancing feature, when the user has multiple standbys for HA.
Could you add a new entry in CommitFest 2017-1? I'm afraid we can't track the status of your patch because the original patch in this thread has already been committed.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2016-11-11 06:38:15 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-11-11 05:48:36 | Re: [PATCH] Send catalog_xmin separately in hot standby feedback |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2016-11-11 07:03:49 | Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |
| Previous Message | Mithun Cy | 2016-11-10 14:59:45 | Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |