| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Date: | 2015-07-02 06:29:09 |
| Message-ID: | 5594DA35.7080400@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-07-02 PM 03:12, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> So I'm thinking that we basically need to check the progress on each
> standby to choose new master.
>
Does HA software determine a standby to promote based on replication progress
or would things be reliable enough for it to infer one from the quorum setting
specified in GUC (or wherever)? Is part of the job of this patch to make the
latter possible? Just wondering or perhaps I am completely missing the point.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Beena Emerson | 2015-07-02 06:43:07 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2015-07-02 06:12:15 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |