| From: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ale Rox <gitroxale(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Native High Availability and Automatic Failover in PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2025-06-25 15:30:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAKAnmm+DTuCVESSuZ=GXVmMhQauAofo2R0bjqWsPT3PosKeORg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 3:26 AM Ale Rox <gitroxale(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Specifically, it would be extremely useful to have:
>
(snip wishlist)
> Are there any plans to introduce such functionality in the core
> PostgreSQL project in the future?
Getting failover to work, and work CORRECTLY[1], is an extremely
complicated task, fraught with tons of complicated edge cases and risks. It
may arrive "in core" someday, but it's going to be a very long road. I
would suggest starting on one of your bullets. Pick as small of a feature
as you can, then expand on its use case and all the specific items it would
need to do. Look at Patroni (current best-in-class failover system for
Postgres) and see how it does it, then try to map how Postgres itself could
do the same.
[1] MongoDB does not have a good rep in this area
Cheers,
Greg
--
Crunchy Data - https://www.crunchydata.com
Enterprise Postgres Software Products & Tech Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2025-06-25 15:33:16 | Re: Proposal: Native High Availability and Automatic Failover in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-06-25 15:21:03 | Re: Fixes inconsistent behavior in vacuum when it processes multiple relations |