| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA)" <bnicholson(at)hpe(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Date: | 2016-09-02 00:01:35 |
| Message-ID: | 319315e7-6cfa-ea87-7924-9e1dd1eb81f5@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 09/01/2016 04:56 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes, the case described by Josh is rather narrow as most users are not
> going to use the same application_name for multiple standbys. Combined
> with synchronous_commit = remote_apply what you actually have is the
> guarantee that WAL has been applied synchronously to multiple nodes,
> allowing for read balancing.
It's not narrow if you think of it this way:
2 ( north_carolina, oregon, californa )
That is, if each pseudo-group is a data center, then that arrangement
makes a lot of sense. Oh, well, waiting for 10.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-09-02 00:45:21 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-09-01 23:56:09 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |