On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 14:25 -0500, David Christensen wrote: > Is there any benefit to be had from having standby roles instead of > individual names? For instance, you could integrate this into quorum > commit to express 3 of 5 "reporting" standbys, 1 "berlin" standby and > 1 "tokyo" standby from a group of multiple per data center, or even > just utilize role sizes of 1 if you wanted individual standbys to be > "named" in this fashion. This role could be provided on connect of > the standby is more-or-less tangential to the specific registration > issue.
There is substantial benefit in that config. If we want to do relaying and path minimization, as is possible with Slony, we would want to do M -> S1 -> S2 where M is in London, S1 and S2 are in Berlin. so that the master sends data only once to Berlin. If we send to a group, we can also allow things to continue working if S1 goes down, since S2 might then know it could connect to M directly. That's complex and not something for the first release, IMHO. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
