| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Date: | 2015-07-02 07:16:30 |
| Message-ID: | 5594E54E.6010403@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-07-02 PM 03:43, Beena Emerson wrote:
> Amit wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Deciding the failover standby is not exactly part of this patch but we
> should be able to set up a mechanism to decide which is the best standby to
> be promoted.
>
> We might not be able to conclude this from the sync parameter alone.
>
> As specified before in some cases an async standby could also be most
> eligible for the promotion.
>
Thanks for the explanation.
Regards,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2015-07-02 07:27:29 | Re: Odd behaviour of SELECT ... ORDER BY ... FOR UPDATE |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2015-07-02 07:15:30 | Odd behaviour of SELECT ... ORDER BY ... FOR UPDATE |