Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTinYoO9Li32oEMRppKOxWrP0D2kCAC+smJr_cXSj@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) (Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> >> Yes, let's please just implement something simple and get it >> committed. k = 1. Two GUCs (synchronous_standbys = name, name, name >> and synchronous_waitfor = none|recv|fsync|apply), SUSET so you can >> change it per txn. Done. We can revise it *the day after it's >> committed* if we agree on how. And if we *don't* agree, then we can >> ship it and we still win. >> > > I like the idea of something simple committed first, and am trying to > understand what's said above. > > k = 1 : wait for only one ack > two gucs: does this mean configurable in postgresql.conf at the master, and > changable with SET commands on the master depending on options? Are both > gucs mutable? > synchronous_standbys: I'm wondering if this registration is necessary in > this simple setup. What are the named used for? Could they be removed? > Should they also be configured at each standby? > synchronous_waitfor: If configured on the master, how is it updated to the > standbys? What does being able to configure 'none' mean? k = 0? I smell a > POLA violation here. Well, there's got to be some way to turn synchronous replication off. The obvious methods are to allow synchronous_standbys to be set to empty or to allow synchronous_waitfor to be set to none. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: