On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 15:07 -0500, Robert Treat wrote: > > > If more than one standby server specifies synchronous_replication, > > then > > > whichever standby replies first will release waiting commits. > > > I don't want you to think I am setting an expectation, but I'm curious > > about the possibility of requiring more than 1 server to reply? > > I was initially interested in this myself, but after a long discussion > on "quorum commit" it was decided to go with "first past post". > > That is easier to manage, requires one less parameter, performs better > and doesn't really add that much additional confidence. >
Yes, I think with a single master, you are probably right (been dealing with more than my fair share of multi-master based nosql solutions lately) Still, one thing that has me concerned is that in the case of two slaves, you don't know which one is the more up-to-date one if you need to failover. It'd be nice if you could just guarantee they both are, but in lieu of that, I guess whatever decision tree is being used, it needs to look at current xlog location of any potential failover targets. > It was also discussed that we would have a plugin API, but I'm less sure > about that now. Perhaps we can add that option in the future, but its > not high on my list of things for this release. > Agreed. Robert Treat http://www.xzilla.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers