| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Date: | 2015-07-02 07:12:36 |
| Message-ID: | 5594E464.1000908@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-07-02 PM 03:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> On 2015-07-02 PM 03:12, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>> So I'm thinking that we basically need to check the progress on each
>>> standby to choose new master.
>>>
>>
>> Does HA software determine a standby to promote based on replication progress
>> or would things be reliable enough for it to infer one from the quorum setting
>> specified in GUC (or wherever)? Is part of the job of this patch to make the
>> latter possible? Just wondering or perhaps I am completely missing the point.
>
> Replication progress is a factor of choice, but not the only one. The
> sole role of this patch is just to allow us to have more advanced
> policy in defining how synchronous replication works, aka how we want
> to let the master acknowledge a commit synchronously from a set of N
> standbys. In any case, this is something unrelated to the discussion
> happening here.
>
Got it, thanks!
Regards,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2015-07-02 07:15:30 | Odd behaviour of SELECT ... ORDER BY ... FOR UPDATE |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-07-02 07:02:27 | Re: Asynchronous execution on FDW |