Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date: 2015-10-14 04:34:42
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQN48KP6Gj471R2QkxOHrHOODdzWFuQABY40ofuO2_=TA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> The draft patch of replication using priority is already implemented
> by Michael, so I need to implement simple quorum commit logic and
> merge them.

The last patch in date I know of is this one:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqRFSLmHbYonra0=p-X8MJ-XTL7oxjP_QXDJGsjpvWRXPA@mail.gmail.com
It would surely need a rebase.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2015-10-14 05:03:56 Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2015-10-14 03:58:50 Re: Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows