| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Date: | 2015-06-28 12:11:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSaucq8mMsrEh7kn7Ha4q5XKvBzmb-+TLFqKNaOoAO77w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> Finally, while I'm raining on everyone's parade: the mechanism of
> identifying synchronous replicas by setting the application_name on the
> replica is confusing and error-prone; if we're building out synchronous
> replication into a sophisticated system, we ought to think about
> replacing it.
I assume that you do not refer to a new parameter in the connection
string like node_name, no? Are you referring to an extension of
START_REPLICATION in the replication protocol to pass an ID?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2015-06-28 12:12:11 | Re: proposal: condition blocks in psql |
| Previous Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2015-06-28 11:36:29 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |