| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |
| Date: | 2010-10-07 07:32:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1286436770.2304.189.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 10:57 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> (2), (3) Degradation: (Jeff) these two cases make sense only if we
> give
> DBAs the tools they need to monitor which standbys are falling behind,
> and to drop and replace those standbys. Otherwise we risk giving DBAs
> false confidence that they have better-than-1-standby reliability when
> actually they don't. Current tools are not really adequate for this.
Current tools work just fine for identifying if a server is falling
behind. This improved in 9.0 to give fine-grained information. Nothing
more is needed here within the server.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-07 07:41:30 | Re: On Scalability |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-07 07:30:56 | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |