| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Date: | 2016-09-02 20:09:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20160902200952.GA23135@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 07:50:58AM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> But if you have BOTH features, then you can set
> synchronous_standby_names to require an ACK from *every* standby, and
> you can set synchronous_commit=remote_apply so that you wait for WAL
> to be applied, not just fsync'd, and now you are guaranteed that
> whenever you make a change on the master and then read it back from
> any one of your read-replicas, it will be there! And that, IMHO, is
> pretty cool.
Are we clear on how useful this will be because of the delay in applying
WAL, particularly for when conflicting read-only queries are running?
--
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 | Robert Haas | 2016-09-03 16:47:37 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-02 02:20:58 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |