From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
Date: | 2010-09-17 19:32:17 |
Message-ID: | m2hbho6u9q.fsf@hi-media.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 21:20 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> According to what I heard, some people want to guarantee that all the
>> transactions are *always* written in *all* the synchronous standbys.
>
> You don't need standby registration at all. You can do that with a
> single parameter, already proposed:
>
> quorum_commit = N.
I think you also need another parameter to control the behavior upon
timeout. You received less than N votes, now what? You're current idea
seems to be COMMIT, Aidan says ROLLBACK, and I say that's to be a GUC
set at the transaction level.
As far as registration goes, I see no harm to have the master maintain a
list of known standby systems, of course, it's just maintaining that
list from the master that I don't understand the use case for.
Regards,
--
dim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-09-17 19:36:32 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-17 18:50:22 | pgsql: Move pg_db_role_setting docs to correct place in alphabetical |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-09-17 19:36:32 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-17 19:28:14 | Re: Report: removing the inconsistencies in our CVS->git conversion |