| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
| Date: | 2010-10-05 12:34:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1286282046.2025.1296.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 12:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>> Quorum commit, even with configurable vote weights, can't handle a
> >>> requirement that a particular commit be replicated to (A || B) && (C
> >>> || D).
> >> Good point.
Asking for quorum_commit = 3 would cover that requirement.
Not exactly as requested, but in a way that is both simpler to express
and requires no changes to configuration after failover. ISTM better to
have a single parameter than 5 separate configuration files, with
behaviour that the community would not easily be able to validate.
> If this is the only feature which standby registration is needed for,
> has anyone written the code for it yet? Is anyone planning to?
(Not me)
> If not, it seems like standby registration is not *required* for 9.1. I
> still tend to think it would be nice to have from a DBA perspective, but
> we should separate required from "nice to have".
Agreed.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2010-10-05 12:36:24 | A quick warning on the win32 build scripts |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-05 12:33:29 | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |