From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Disallow quorum uncommitted (with synchronous standbys) txns in logical replication subscribers |
Date: | 2022-01-07 18:23:24 |
Message-ID: | 71BBF64B-392E-4FE0-A103-C92258901909@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/6/22, 11:25 PM, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-01-05 at 23:59 -0800, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM wrote:
>> I would like to propose a GUC send_Wal_after_quorum_committed which
>> when set to ON, walsenders corresponds to async standbys and logical
>> replication workers wait until the LSN is quorum committed on the
>> primary before sending it to the standby. This not only simplifies
>> the post failover steps but avoids unnecessary downtime for the async
>> replicas. Thoughts?
>
> Do we need a GUC? Or should we just always require that sync rep is
> satisfied before sending to async replicas?
>
> It feels like the sync quorum should always be ahead of the async
> replicas. Unless I'm missing a use case, or there is some kind of
> performance gotcha.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether there needs to be a GUC, but
+1 for the ability to enforce sync quorum before sending WAL to async
standbys. I think that would be a reasonable default behavior.
Nathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-01-07 18:43:08 | Re: Disallow quorum uncommitted (with synchronous standbys) txns in logical replication subscribers |
Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2022-01-07 18:17:29 | Re: Postgres restart in the middle of exclusive backup and the presence of backup_label file |