Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Standalone synchronous master

From: Alexander Björnhagen <alex(dot)bjornhagen(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Standalone synchronous master
Date: 2012-01-13 10:30:40
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
At this point I feel that this new functionality might be a bit
overkill for postgres, maybe it's better to stay lean and mean rather
than add a controversial feature like this.

I also agree that a more general replication timeout variable would be
more useful to a larger audience but that would in my view add more
complexity to the replication code which is quite simple and
understandable right now ...

Anyway, my backup plan was to achieve the same thing by triggering on
the logging produced on the primary server and switch to async mode
when detecting that the standby replication link has failed (and then
back again when it is restored). In effect I would put a replication
monitor on the outside of the server instead of embedding it.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marc MaminDate: 2012-01-13 10:56:31
Subject: CLONE TABLE DATA TO <new_table>
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2012-01-13 10:04:49
Subject: replay_location indicates incorrect location

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group