| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-05-27 12:21:36 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTilYv7ySIZH43SZLZ2d83mHeePeiGiQlNj8O3Uj1@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> There already is a first patch to the community that implements quorum
> commit, just not by you.
Yeah, AFAIK, that patch includes also per-standby setting.
> If you have a better way, describe it in detail and in full now, with
> reference to each of the use cases you mentioned, so that people get a
> chance to give their opinions on your design. Then we can let the
> community decide whether or not that second way is actually better. We
> may not need a second patch.
See http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01407.php
But I think that we should focus on "per-standby" setting at first.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2010-05-27 12:40:41 | Re: pg_trgm |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2010-05-27 12:18:17 | Re: pg_trgm |