| From: | "Erik Rijkers" <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | must synchronous_standby_names be set? |
| Date: | 2011-07-01 13:42:39 |
| Message-ID: | 7889ee895b67b822079b6e09a1b93f3e.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I'm testing synchronous replication on 9.2devel - both instances are on a single machine.
The primary shows synchronous_commit = on
and synchronous_standby_names = ''.
The standby receives updates fine.
Now, does the 'synchronous_commit = on' absolutely mean that the session is sync-replicating?
Could it be non-synchronously replicating?
If so, this information in the manual seems wrong:
"
25.2.6.1. Basic Configuration
Once streaming replication has been configured, configuring synchronous replication requires only
one additional configuration step: synchronous_standby_names must be set to a non-empty value.
"
( the 'must be set' part )
Two questions:
1. How to query a session to make absolutely sure that replication is actually synchronous?
2. Does sync-repl really need synchronous_standby_names to be set?
Thank you,
Erik Rijkers
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-01 14:32:08 | Re: relpersistence and temp table |
| Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2011-07-01 12:06:20 | relpersistence and temp table |