| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-05-27 11:30:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1274959830.6203.4315.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 19:50 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> For now, I agree that we support a quorum commit feature for 9.1 or later.
> But I don't think that it's simpler, more intuitive and easier-to-understand
> than per-standby setting. So I think that we should include the per-standby
> setting in the first patch.
There already is a first patch to the community that implements quorum
commit, just not by you.
If you have a better way, describe it in detail and in full now, with
reference to each of the use cases you mentioned, so that people get a
chance to give their opinions on your design. Then we can let the
community decide whether or not that second way is actually better. We
may not need a second patch.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2010-05-27 11:53:37 | Re: pg_trgm |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-27 11:30:21 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |