From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Synchronous replication |
Date: | 2010-07-27 16:58:03 |
Message-ID: | 7063F342-9066-43C2-9400-53911B1033B2@hi-media.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le 27 juil. 2010 à 15:12, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> a écrit :
> My concern is that in a quorum system, if the quorum number is less than the
> total number of replicas, there's no way to know *which* replicas composed the
> quorum for any given transaction, so we can't know which servers to fail to if
> the master dies. This isn't different from Oracle, where it looks like
> essentially the "quorum" value is always 1. Your scenario shows that all
> replicas are not created equal, and that sometimes we'll be interested in WAL
> getting committed on a specific subset of the available servers. If I had two
> nearby replicas called X and Y, and one at a remote site called Z, for
> instance, I'd set quorum to 2, but really I'd want to say "wait for server X
> and Y before committing, but don't worry about Z".
>
> I have no idea how to set up our GUCs to encode a situation like that :)
You make it so that Z does not take a vote, by setting it async.
Regards,
--
dim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-27 17:06:50 | Re: merge command - GSoC progress |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-27 16:07:00 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add restart_after_crash GUC. |