From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
Date: | 2014-01-10 15:47:25 |
Message-ID: | 20140110154725.GD4873@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:21:42AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > I think RAID-1 is a very good comparison because it is successful
> > technology and has similar issues.
> >
> > RAID-1 is like Postgres synchronous_standby_names mode in the sense that
> > the RAID-1 controller will not return success until writes have happened
> > on both mirrors, but it is unlike synchronous_standby_names in that it
> > will degrade and continue writes even when it can't write to both
> > mirrors. What is being discussed is to allow the RAID-1 behavior in
> > Postgres.
> >
> > One issue that came up in discussions is the insufficiency of writing a
> > degrade notice in a server log file because the log file isn't durable
> > from server failures, meaning you don't know if a fail-over to the slave
> > lost commits. The degrade message has to be stored durably against a
> > server failure, e.g. on a pager, probably using a command like we do for
> > archive_command, and has to return success before the server continues
> > in degrade mode. I assume degraded RAID-1 controllers inform
> > administrators in the same way.
>
> Here I think if user is aware from beginning that this is the behaviour,
> then may be the importance of message is not very high.
> What I want to say is that if we provide a UI in such a way that user
> decides during setup of server the behavior that is required by him.
>
> For example, if we provide a new parameter
> available_synchronous_standby_names along with current parameter
> and ask user to use this new parameter, if he wishes to synchronously
> commit transactions on another server when it is available, else it will
> operate as a standalone sync master.
I know there was a desire to remove this TODO item, but I think we have
brought up enough new issues that we can keep it to see if we can come
up with a solution. I have added a link to this discussion on the TODO
item.
I think we will need at least four new GUC variables:
* timeout control for degraded mode
* command to run during switch to degraded mode
* command to run during switch from degraded mode
* read-only variable to report degraded mode
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-01-10 15:48:06 | Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-01-10 15:42:47 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |