| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Date: | 2015-07-02 18:31:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20150702183115.GG16267@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-07-02 11:10:27 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> If we're always going to be polling the replicas for furthest ahead,
> then why bother implementing quorum synch at all? That's the basic
> question I'm asking. What does it buy us that we don't already have?
What do those topic have to do with each other? A standby fundamentally
can be further ahead than what the primary knows about. So you can't do
very much with that knowledge on the master anyway?
> I'm serious, here. Without any additional information on synch state at
> failure time, I would never use quorum synch. If there's someone on
> this thread who *would*, let's speak to their use case and then we can
> actually get the feature right. Anyone?
How would you otherwise ensure that your data is both on a second server
in the same DC and in another DC? Which is a pretty darn common desire?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | CK Tan | 2015-07-02 18:37:09 | Re: Memory Accounting v11 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-07-02 18:28:25 | Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work |