From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
Date: | 2015-06-26 06:06:24 |
Message-ID: | 558CEBE0.8040400@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-06-26 PM 02:59, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2015-06-26 AM 12:49, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>>
>> For example,
>> - s_s_name = '1(a, b), c, d'
>> The priority of both 'a' and 'b' are 1, and 'c' is 2, 'd' is 3.
>> i.g, 'b' and 'c' are potential sync node, and the quorum commit is
>> enable only between 'a' and 'b'.
>>
>> - s_s_name = 'a, 1(b,c), d'
>> priority of 'a' is 1, 'b' and 'c' are 2, 'd' is 3.
>> So the quorum commit with 'b' and 'c' will be enabled after 'a' down.
>>
>
> Do we really need to add a number like '1' in '1(a, b), c, d'?
>
> The order of writing names already implies priorities like 2 & 3 for c & d,
> respectively, like in your example. Having to write '1' for the group '(a, b)'
> seems unnecessary, IMHO. Sorry if I have missed any previous discussion where
> its necessity was discussed.
>
> So, the order of writing standby names in the list should declare their
> relative priorities and parentheses (possibly nested) should help inform about
> the grouping (for quorum?)
>
Oh, I missed Michael's latest message that describes its necessity. So, the
number is essentially the quorum for a group.
Sorry about the noise.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-06-26 06:20:01 | WIP: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER CONSTRAINT ... SET DEFERRABLE on UNIQUE or PK |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-06-26 06:05:52 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |