| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Subhankar Chattopadhyay <subho(dot)atg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Lag in asynchronous replication |
| Date: | 2017-03-24 06:46:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS99Tipg+YdNd-ugA3ubGiUjBukcB1RWmq-rEinrW7bfw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Subhankar Chattopadhyay
<subho(dot)atg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Are you asking to have slave with synchronous replication?
(top-posting is annoying)
No, slaves cannot do synchronous replication. I am just telling that
once you are sure that a sync state has been achieved on the master,
you have the guarantee that data gets synchronously replicated on the
standbys as long as you do *not* change synchronous_standby_names. So
there is no actual need to know what's the state of the master during
a failover to a sync standby.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Glen Huang | 2017-03-24 06:47:20 | Re: How to create unique index on multiple columns where the combination doesn't matter? |
| Previous Message | Subhankar Chattopadhyay | 2017-03-24 06:11:51 | Re: Lag in asynchronous replication |