On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Jan Wieck <janwi...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 5/27/2010 4:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> >>> BTW, I think we're going to need a separate config file for listing the >>> standbys anyway. There you can write per-server rules and options, but >>> explicitly knowing about all the standbys also allows the master to recycle >>> WAL as soon as it has been streamed to all the registered standbys. >>> Currently we just keep wal_keep_segments files around, just in case there's >>> a standby out there that needs them. >> >> Ideally we could set 'slave_sync_count' and 'slave_commit_continue_mode' >> on the master, and allow the sync/async mode to be set on each slave, >> e.g. if slave_sync_count = 2 and slave_commit_continue_mode = #2, then >> two slaves with sync mode of #2 or stricter have to complete before the >> master can continue. >> >> Naming the slaves on the master seems very confusing because I am >> unclear how we would identify named slaves, and the names have to match, >> etc. >> Also, what would be cool would be if you could run a query on the master >> to view the SR commit mode of each slave. > > What would be the use case for such a query?
Monitoring? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
