Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, fazool mein <fazoolmein(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry
Date: 2010-09-02 14:32:33
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 02/09/10 17:06, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 08:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>  wrote:
>>> "All standbys" has no meaning without registration. It is not a question
>>> that needs an answer.
>> Tell that to the DBA.  I bet s/he knows what "all standbys" means.
>> The fact that the system doesn't know something doesn't make it
>> unimportant.
>> I agree that we don't absolutely need standby registration for some
>> really basic version of synchronous replication.  But I think we'd be
>> better off biting the bullet and adding it.  I think that without it
>> we're going to resort to a series of increasingly grotty and
>> user-unfriendly hacks to make this work.
> I'm personally quite happy to have server registration.
> My interest is in ensuring we have master-controlled robustness, which
> is so far being ignored because "we need simple". Refrring to above, we
> are clearly quite willing to go beyond the most basic implementation, so
> there's no further argument to exclude it for that reason.
> The implementation of master-controlled robustness is no more difficult
> than the alternative.

I understand what you're after, the idea of being able to set 
synchronization level on a per-transaction basis is cool. But I haven't 
seen a satisfactory design for it. I don't understand how it would work 
in practice. Even though it's cool, having different kinds of standbys 
connected is a more common scenario, and the design needs to accommodate 
that too. I'm all ears if you can sketch a design that can do that.

   Heikki Linnakangas

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-09-02 15:41:24
Subject: Re: "serializable" in comments and names
Previous:From: Max BowsherDate: 2010-09-02 14:21:12
Subject: Re: git: uh-oh

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group