Le 27 juil. 2010 à 15:12, Joshua Tolley <eggyk...@gmail.com> a écrit : > My concern is that in a quorum system, if the quorum number is less than the > total number of replicas, there's no way to know *which* replicas composed the > quorum for any given transaction, so we can't know which servers to fail to if > the master dies. This isn't different from Oracle, where it looks like > essentially the "quorum" value is always 1. Your scenario shows that all > replicas are not created equal, and that sometimes we'll be interested in WAL > getting committed on a specific subset of the available servers. If I had two > nearby replicas called X and Y, and one at a remote site called Z, for > instance, I'd set quorum to 2, but really I'd want to say "wait for server X > and Y before committing, but don't worry about Z". > > I have no idea how to set up our GUCs to encode a situation like that :)
You make it so that Z does not take a vote, by setting it async. Regards, -- dim -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
