| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
| Date: | 2010-10-04 15:20:30 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=f7xvzKrDrPVb6PAGXLPweQY==rHVNk_1sZnAv@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 05:06 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> Wait forever can be done without standby registration, with quorum commit.
>
> Yeah, I also think the only reason for standby registration is ease of
> configuration (if at all). There's no technical requirement for standby
> registration, AFAICS. Or does anybody know of a realistic use case
> that's possible with standby registration, but not with quorum commit?
Quorum commit, even with configurable vote weights, can't handle a
requirement that a particular commit be replicated to (A || B) && (C
|| D).
The use case is something like "we want to make sure we've replicated
to at least one of the two servers in the Berlin datacenter and at
least one of the two servers in the Hong Kong datacenter".
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-04 15:23:53 | Re: OUTER keyword |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-10-04 15:15:13 | Re: ugly locking corner cases ... |