| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
| Date: | 2010-10-05 15:03:09 |
| Message-ID: | 4CAB3E2D.8000108@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Another check: does specifying replication by server in such detail mean
> we can't specify robustness at the transaction level? If we gave up that
> feature, it would be a greatloss for performance tuning.
It's orthagonal. The kinds of configurations we're talking about simply
define what it will mean when you commit a transaction "with synch".
However, I think we're getting way the heck away from how far we really
want to go for 9.1. Can I point out to people that synch rep is going
to involve a fair bit of testing and debugging, and that maybe we don't
want to try to implement The World's Most Configurable Standby Spec as a
first step?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-05 15:06:47 | Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-05 14:56:57 | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |