| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)jirotech(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Multiple synchronous_standby_names rules |
| Date: | 2017-01-12 01:06:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqR4+LNv0jey+tRBFm1pXhjhGkik=U=rBBczKbkVcGT8GQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:53 AM, James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)jirotech(dot)com> wrote:
> What is needed to support this is the ability to configure Px with something like:
>
> 1 (P1, P2, P3), 1 (D1, D2, D3)
>
> Would there be any appetite for this - or would it be seen as over complication of the current rules?
There have been discussions about being able to do that and there are
really use cases where that would be useful. As lately quorum commit
has been committed, we have a better idea of the grammar to use
(yeah!), though there are a couple of things remaining regarding the
design of node subsets:
- How to define group names? Making them mandatory would likely be the
way to go.
- How to represent that intuitively in pg_stat_replication? Perhaps
the answer here is an extra column in this system view.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2017-01-12 01:08:54 | Re: Retiring from the Core Team |
| Previous Message | James Sewell | 2017-01-12 00:53:14 | Multiple synchronous_standby_names rules |