| From: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v19 |
| Date: | 2011-03-05 16:42:13 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikvJD9bWxm7wSYSeu-pA1yHdF6Pw+ERB8jKbj--@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
El 05/03/2011 11:18, "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> escribió:
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
> > I'm not in favour.
> >
> > If the user has a preferred order, they can specify it. If there is no
> > preferred order, how will we maintain that order?
> >
> > What are the rules for maintaining this arbitrary order?
>
> Probably what Robert, Yeb and I think is to leave the current
> sync standby in sync mode until either its connection is closed
> or higher priority standby connects. No complicated rule is
> required.
>
It's not better to remove the code to manage * in synchronous_standby_names?
Once we do that there is no chance of having 2 standbys with the same
priority.
After all, most of the times the dba will need to change the * for a real
list of names anyway. At least in IMHO
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-05 16:46:13 | Re: Alpha4 release blockers (was Re: wrapping up this CommitFest) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-05 16:31:12 | Re: Sync Rep v19 |