Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)
Date: 2010-10-08 05:43:40
Message-ID: 4CAEAF8C.1070903@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 07.10.2010 23:56, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> The standby name is a GUC in the standby's configuration file:
>>
>> standby_name='bostonserver'
>>
>
> Fwiw I was hoping it would be possible to set every machine up with an
> identical postgresql.conf file.

This proposal allows that. At least assuming you have a simple setup of
one master and N standbys, and you're happy with a reply from any
standby, as opposed to all standbys. You just set both standby_name and
synchronous_standby GUCS to 'foo' in all servers, and you're done.

You'll need to point each standby's primary_conninfo setting to the
current master, though, but that's no different from the situation today
with asynchronous replication. Presumably you'll have a virtual IP
address or host name that always points to the current master, also used
by the actual applications connecting to the database.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Itagaki Takahiro 2010-10-08 05:47:57 Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2010-10-08 05:30:03 Re: Issues with Quorum Commit