| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA)" <bnicholson(at)hpe(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(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: | 2016-09-01 23:56:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSHNH+XqHZAohgf5W=uraa4-zRSBm5Fa5vas7q-cM8BfA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA)
<bnicholson(at)hpe(dot)com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pgsql-advocacy-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-
>> owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus
>> So, I have to say, this doesn't *feel* like a major press-worthy feature yet. It
>> will be in 10, but is it right now?
>
> For me the press-worthy side of this in its current state is that it allows for a no-data loss guarantee in the event of a network partition.
>
> Having more than two sync copies of data is pretty major in my opinion as well.
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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2016-09-02 00:01:35 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Previous Message | Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA) | 2016-09-01 16:09:40 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |