| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Date: | 2016-09-03 16:47:37 |
| Message-ID: | 770E733B-DA49-4D18-8DBB-3716DBB3473A@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Sep 3, 2016, at 1:39 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 07:50:58AM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
>> But if you have BOTH features, then you can set
>> synchronous_standby_names to require an ACK from *every* standby, and
>> you can set synchronous_commit=remote_apply so that you wait for WAL
>> to be applied, not just fsync'd, and now you are guaranteed that
>> whenever you make a change on the master and then read it back from
>> any one of your read-replicas, it will be there! And that, IMHO, is
>> pretty cool.
>
> Are we clear on how useful this will be because of the delay in applying
> WAL, particularly for when conflicting read-only queries are running?
Not entirely, but people are already doing read-scaling with replicas, so having an option to make that reliable seems like a good thing.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2016-09-06 23:00:22 | Re: 9.6 Release: Call for Quotes |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-09-02 20:09:52 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |