| From: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous standbys? |
| Date: | 2011-02-23 16:39:28 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinQ753p1L0SVuufCvVBxmYUd927opxpQepudawM@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>
> It seems there's only one synchronous standby allowed at the same
> time.
>
> Does anybody know which one is correct?
there could be only one standby at the same time...
in the original patch there could be several synchronous standby
servers and the primary was going to wait until the first one of them
to answer, but that was removed and replaced by a list of possible
synch standby servers and the first that connects is the one the
primary will wait for. because right now it's a simple list the first
one will always be the synch standby until it's removed from the list
or phisically.
the other comment in the doc should be removed
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-02-23 16:43:19 | Re: How to extract a value from a record using attnum or attname? |
| Previous Message | Radosław Smogura | 2011-02-23 16:35:08 | Re: Binary in/out for aclitem |