| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA)" <bnicholson(at)hpe(dot)com>, 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: | 2016-09-02 00:45:21 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQEotArpda90uc_d__Bjt+vM+LHUJw6ZzpgC9XA7D4ZsQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 09/01/2016 04:56 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Yes, the case described by Josh is rather narrow as most users are not
>> going to use the same application_name for multiple standbys. Combined
>> with synchronous_commit = remote_apply what you actually have is the
>> guarantee that WAL has been applied synchronously to multiple nodes,
>> allowing for read balancing.
>
> It's not narrow if you think of it this way:
> 2 ( north_carolina, oregon, californa )
Yes.
> That is, if each pseudo-group is a data center, then that arrangement
> makes a lot of sense. Oh, well, waiting for 10.
I was referring to the wait behavior where multiple standbys use the
same application_name, which is what you complained about AFAIK.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-02 02:20:58 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2016-09-02 00:01:35 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |