| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Date: | 2016-08-30 22:32:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20160830223254.GB31355@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 03:22:18PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> So that's usually what I mean when I say quorum commit. But apparently
> our feature does something slightly different?
>
> "For example, a setting of 3 (s1, s2, s3, s4) makes transaction commits
> wait until their WAL records are received by three higher-priority
> standbys chosen from standby servers s1, s2, s3 and s4"
>
> What does that mean exactly? If I do:
>
> 3 ( s1, s2, s3, s4, s5 )
>
> And a commit is ack'd by s2, s3, and s5, what happens?
As I understand it, it can continue with those three servers sending a
confirmation back.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-08-31 00:35:59 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2016-08-30 22:22:18 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |