| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Date: | 2016-09-01 06:06:10 |
| Message-ID: | 7fa0ad24-dbbc-93c6-e6c5-914542d4ac9b@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 08/31/2016 07:13 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes that's the case. If for example I have a set of slaves like that:
> application_name | replay_delta | sync_priority | sync_state
> ------------------+--------------+---------------+------------
> node1 | 0 | 1 | sync
> node1 | 0 | 1 | sync
> node1 | 0 | 1 | potential
> node2 | 0 | 2 | potential
> node2 | 0 | 2 | potential
> node2 | 0 | 2 | potential
> node3 | 0 | 0 | async
> node3 | 0 | 0 | async
> node3 | 0 | 0 | async
> =# show synchronous_standby_names ;
> synchronous_standby_names
> ---------------------------
> 2(node1, node2)
>
> You'd need to have the confirmation to come from two nodes with node1
> as application_name because those have the higher priority in the
> list.
So, I have to say, this doesn't *feel* like a major press-worthy feature
yet. It will be in 10, but is it right now?
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA) | 2016-09-01 16:09:40 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2016-09-01 02:40:53 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |