From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
Date: | 2010-10-05 12:33:29 |
Message-ID: | 1286282009.2025.1292.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 14:25 -0500, David Christensen wrote:
> Is there any benefit to be had from having standby roles instead of
> individual names? For instance, you could integrate this into quorum
> commit to express 3 of 5 "reporting" standbys, 1 "berlin" standby and
> 1 "tokyo" standby from a group of multiple per data center, or even
> just utilize role sizes of 1 if you wanted individual standbys to be
> "named" in this fashion. This role could be provided on connect of
> the standby is more-or-less tangential to the specific registration
> issue.
There is substantial benefit in that config.
If we want to do relaying and path minimization, as is possible with
Slony, we would want to do
M -> S1 -> S2 where M is in London, S1 and S2 are in Berlin.
so that the master sends data only once to Berlin.
If we send to a group, we can also allow things to continue working if
S1 goes down, since S2 might then know it could connect to M directly.
That's complex and not something for the first release, IMHO.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-05 12:34:06 | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2010-10-05 12:14:24 | Re: wip: functions median and percentile |