Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date: 2015-06-26 08:04:43
Message-ID: 558D079B.4040208@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Hi,

On 2015-06-25 PM 01:01, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> and that's actually equivalent to that in
>>> the grammar: 1(AAA,BBB,CCC).
>>
>> I don't think that they are the same. In the case of 1(AAA,BBB,CCC), while
>> two servers AAA and BBB are running, the master server may return a success
>> of the transaction to the client just after it receives the ACK from BBB.
>> OTOH, in the case of AAA,BBB, that never happens. The master must wait for
>> the ACK from AAA to arrive before completing the transaction. And then,
>> if AAA goes down, BBB should become synchronous standby.
>
> Ah. Right. I missed your point, that's a bad day... We could have
> multiple separators to define group types then:
> - "()" where the order of acknowledgement does not matter
> - "[]" where it does not.

For '[]', I guess you meant "where it does."

> You would find the old grammar with:
> 1[AAA,BBB,CCC]
>

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2015-06-26 08:18:38 Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Previous Message Oskari Saarenmaa 2015-06-26 07:52:26 thread_test's sched_yield requires -lrt on solaris