| From: | Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Synch failover WAS: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Date: | 2015-07-03 11:29:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1435922986003-5856459.post@n5.nabble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>
> I think that the #2 problem which is Josh pointed out seems to be solved;
> 1. I need to ensure that data is replicated to X places.
> 2. I need to *know* which places data was synchronously replicated
> to when the master goes down.
> And we can address #1 problem using quorum commit.
>
> Thought?
I agree. The knowledge of which servers where in sync(#2) would not actually
help us determine the new master and quorum solves #1.
-----
Beena Emerson
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/Support-for-N-synchronous-standby-servers-take-2-tp5849384p5856459.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-07-03 11:40:04 | Re: Synch failover WAS: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Previous Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2015-07-03 11:18:09 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2015 proposal: Improve the performance of “ALTER TABLE .. SET LOGGED / UNLOGGED” statement |