| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
| Date: | 2010-10-05 06:57:09 |
| Message-ID: | 4CAACC45.2030802@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/04/2010 11:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think in the end
> this is not much different from standby registration; you still have
> registrations, they just represent groups of machines instead of
> single machines.
Such groups are often easy to represent in CIDR notation, which would
reduce the need for registering every single standby.
Anyway, I'm really with Josh on this. It's a configuration debate that
doesn't have much influence on the real implementation. As long as we
keep the 'what nodes and how long does the master wait' decision
flexible enough.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah | 2010-10-05 07:04:52 | Re: streaming replication question |
| Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2010-10-05 06:04:31 | Re: wip: functions median and percentile |