On 02/09/10 17:06, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 08:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Simon Riggs<si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
"All standbys" has no meaning without registration. It is not a question
that needs an answer.
Tell that to the DBA. I bet s/he knows what "all standbys" means.
The fact that the system doesn't know something doesn't make it
unimportant.
I agree that we don't absolutely need standby registration for some
really basic version of synchronous replication. But I think we'd be
better off biting the bullet and adding it. I think that without it
we're going to resort to a series of increasingly grotty and
user-unfriendly hacks to make this work.
I'm personally quite happy to have server registration.
My interest is in ensuring we have master-controlled robustness, which
is so far being ignored because "we need simple". Refrring to above, we
are clearly quite willing to go beyond the most basic implementation, so
there's no further argument to exclude it for that reason.
The implementation of master-controlled robustness is no more difficult
than the alternative.
I understand what you're after, the idea of being able to set
synchronization level on a per-transaction basis is cool. But I haven't
seen a satisfactory design for it. I don't understand how it would work
in practice. Even though it's cool, having different kinds of standbys
connected is a more common scenario, and the design needs to accommodate
that too. I'm all ears if you can sketch a design that can do that.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
