| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Date: | 2015-07-02 06:52:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTVxTL3uTWML93BOEEh=2krG3hkT=R1_Y=7-Jee2WZ4KQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2015-07-02 PM 03:12, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> So I'm thinking that we basically need to check the progress on each
>> standby to choose new master.
>>
>
> Does HA software determine a standby to promote based on replication progress
> or would things be reliable enough for it to infer one from the quorum setting
> specified in GUC (or wherever)? Is part of the job of this patch to make the
> latter possible? Just wondering or perhaps I am completely missing the point.
Replication progress is a factor of choice, but not the only one. The
sole role of this patch is just to allow us to have more advanced
policy in defining how synchronous replication works, aka how we want
to let the master acknowledge a commit synchronously from a set of N
standbys. In any case, this is something unrelated to the discussion
happening here.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-07-02 07:02:27 | Re: Asynchronous execution on FDW |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-07-02 06:48:37 | Re: WAL-related tools and .paritial WAL file |