From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
Date: | 2016-09-06 19:03:41 |
Message-ID: | 16aeb57d-b53e-07f2-41e9-22da0f50f6df@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/29/2016 06:52 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Also I like the following Simon's idea.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8+jLHfBVv_pW6grASNUpW+bdk5DcTu7GWpNAP-+-ZWvKT6w@mail.gmail.com
> -----------------------
> * first k (n1, n2, n3) – does the same as k (n1, n2, n3) does now
> * any k (n1, n2, n3) – would release waiters as soon as we have the
> responses from k out of N standbys. “any k” would be faster, so is
> desirable for performance and resilience
What are we going to do for backwards compatibility, here?
So, here's the dilemma:
If we want to keep backwards compatibility with 9.6, then:
"k (n1, n2, n3)" == "first k (n1, n2, n3)"
However, "first k" is not what most users will want, most of the time;
users of version 13, years from now, will be getting constantly confused
by "first k" behavior when they wanted quorum. So the sensible default
would be:
"k (n1, n2, n3)" == "any k (n1, n2, n3)"
... however, that will break backwards compatibility. Thoughts?
My $0.02 is that we break backwards compat somehow and document the heck
out of it.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2016-09-06 19:04:56 | Re: Logical Replication WIP |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-06 18:59:14 | Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |