Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoarEYcF7mj+2TFqJicdgvd1NwCe5O1DYt0WVeBzJi=D0w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.
Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 17 November 2016 at 10:57, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki >> <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> Do we really want to enable libpq failover against pre-V10 servers? I don't think so, as libpq is a part of PostgreSQLand libpq failover is a new feature in PostgreSQL 10. At least, as one user, I don't want PostgreSQL to sacrificeanother round trip to establish a connection. As a developer, I don't want libpq code more complex than necessary(the proposed patch adds a new state to the connection state machine.) And I think it's natural for the serverto return the server attribute (primary/standby, writable, etc.) as a response to the Startup message like server_version,standard_conforming_strings and server_encoding. >> >> Well, generally speaking, a new feature that works against older >> server is better than one that doesn't. Of course, if that entails >> making other compromises then you have to decide whether it's worth >> it, but SELECT pg_is_in_recovery() and SHOW transaction_read_only >> exist in older versions so if we pick either of those methods then it >> will just work. If we decide to invent some completely new method of >> distinguishing masters from standbys, then it might not, but that >> would be a drawback of such a choice, not a benefit. > > We can and probably should have both. > > If the server tells us on connect whether it's a standby or not, use that. > > Otherwise, ask it. > > That way we don't pay the round-trip cost and get the log spam when > talking to newer servers that send us something useful in the startup > packet, but we can still query it on older servers. Graceful fallback. > > Every round trip is potentially very expensive. Having libpq do them > unnecessarily is bad. True, but raising the bar for this feature so that it doesn't get done is also bad. It can be improved in a later patch. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: