Re: Strange decreasing value of pg_last_wal_receive_lsn()
От | godjan • |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Strange decreasing value of pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | F60D5616-FE83-4FC1-987E-DD0554B41E04@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Strange decreasing value of pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Strange decreasing value of pg_last_wal_receive_lsn()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
synchronous_standby_names=ANY 1(host1, host2) synchronous_commit=on So to understand which standby wrote last data to disk I should know receive_lsn or write_lsn. Sent from my iPhone > On 9 May 2020, at 13:48, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:02:26PM +0500, godjan • wrote: >> Can you recommend what to use to determine which quorum standby >> should be promoted in such case? >> We planned to use pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() to determine which has >> fresh data but if it returns the beginning of the segment on both >> replicas we can’t determine which standby confirmed that write >> transaction to disk. > > If you want to preserve transaction-level consistency across those > notes, what is your configuration for synchronous_standby_names and > synchronous_commit on the primary? Cannot you rely on that? > -- > Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: