| From: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2010-07-27 09:11:44 |
| Message-ID: | 4C4EA2D0.2040309@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua Tolley wrote:
> Perhaps I'm hijacking the wrong thread for this, but I wonder if the quorum
> idea is really the best thing for us.
For reference: it appeared in a long thread a while ago
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01226.php.
> In short, there are three different modes: availability,
> performance, and protection. "Protection" appears to mean that at least one
> standby has applied the log; "availability" means at least one standby has
> received the log info
>
Maybe we could do both, by describing use cases along the availability,
performance and protection setups in the documentation and how they
would be reflected with the standby related parameters.
regards,
Yeb Havinga
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yeb Havinga | 2010-07-27 10:39:15 | Re: Synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | Yeb Havinga | 2010-07-27 08:42:02 | Re: Synchronous replication |