| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2010-08-02 12:03:40 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=LgM5XTg+Mr3FcR26duGFeFE=AGdOKCWEiW=Nz@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Sure. If you give the standbys names, then if people change the
> names, they'll have to update their configuration. But I can't see
> that as an argument against doing it. You can remove the possibility
> that someone will have a hassle if they rename a server by not
> allowing them to give it a name in the first place, but that doesn't
> seem like a win from a usability perspective.
I'm just comparing your idea (i.e., set synchronous_standbys on
each possible master) with my idea (i.e., set replication_mode on
each standby). Though your idea has the advantage described in the
following post, it seems to make the setup of the standbys more
complicated, as I described. So I'm trying to generate better idea.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-08/msg00007.php
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yeb Havinga | 2010-08-02 12:57:47 | Re: Synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2010-08-02 11:59:59 | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch - Review |