From: | John H <johnhyvr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Allow logical failover slots to wait on synchronous replication |
Date: | 2024-09-21 01:04:24 |
Message-ID: | CA+-JvFs5P6_-2DAjqvTt5V=7kPndNHOXLpTZL082u3xH56_Qfw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 2:44 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > The difference is that the purpose of 'synchronized_standby_slots' is
> > to mention slot names for which the user expects logical walsenders to
> > wait before sending the logical changes to subscribers. OTOH,
> > 'synchronous_standby_names' has a different purpose as well. It is not
> > clear to me if the users would be interested in syncing failover slots
> > to all the standbys mentioned in 'synchronous_standby_names'.
> >
>
> Okay, I see your point. But not sure what could be the solution here
> except documenting. But let me think more.
>
That's a great find. I didn't consider mixed physical and logical
replicas in synchronous_standby_names.
I wonder if there are users running synchronous_standby_names with a
mix of logical and
physical replicas and what the use case would be.
Not sure if there's anything straight forward we could do in general
for slot syncing if synchronous_standby_names
refers to application_names of logical replicas, the feature can't be supported.
--
John Hsu - Amazon Web Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2024-09-21 02:55:53 | Re: pg_checksums: Reorder headers in alphabetical order |
Previous Message | John H | 2024-09-21 00:53:39 | Re: Allow logical failover slots to wait on synchronous replication |