From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
Date: | 2010-09-22 00:04:55 |
Message-ID: | 4C994827.1030403@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
> That said, the timeout option also feels a bit wishy-washy to me. With a
> timeout, acknowledgment of a commit means "your transaction is safely
> committed in the master and slave. Or not, if there was some glitch with
> the slave". That doesn't seem like a very useful guarantee; if you're
> happy with that why not just use async replication?
Ah, I wasn't clear. My thought was that a standby which exceeds the
timeout would be marked as "nonresponsive" and no longer included in the
list of standbys which needed to be synchronized. That is, the timeout
would be a timeout which says "this standby is down".
> So the only case where standby registration is required is where you
> deliberately choose to *not* have N+1 redundancy and then yet still
> require all N standbys to acknowledge. That is a suicidal config and
> nobody would sanely choose that. It's not a large or useful use case for
> standby reg. (But it does raise the question again of whether we need
> quorum commit).
Thinking of this as a sysadmin, what I want is to have *one place* I can
go an troubleshoot my standby setup. If I have 12 synch standbys and
they're creating too much load on the master, and I want to change half
of them to async, I don't want to have to ssh into 6 different machines
to do so. If one standby needs to be taken out of the network because
it's too slow, I want to be able to log in to the master and instantly
identify which standby is lagging and remove it there.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-09-22 00:25:47 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-09-21 23:37:37 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Elvis Pranskevichus | 2010-09-22 00:06:24 | Re: moving development branch activity to new git repo |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-09-21 23:57:37 | Re: What happened to the is_<type> family of functions proposal? |