On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > I'm not good at composition, so I cannot insist on my > proposal. For the convenience of others, here is the proposal > from Fujii-san. >
Do you see any problem with the below proposal? To me, this sounds reasonable. > + A quorum-based synchronous replication is basically more efficient than > + a priority-based one when you specify multiple standbys in > + <varname>synchronous_standby_names</> and want to replicate > + the transactions to some of them synchronously. In this case, > + the transactions in a priority-based synchronous replication must wait > for > + reply from the slowest standby in synchronous standbys chosen based on > + their priorities, and which may increase the transaction latencies. > + On the other hand, using a quorum-based synchronous replication may > + improve those latencies because it makes the transactions wait only for > + replies from the requested number of faster standbys in all the listed > + standbys, i.e., such slow standby doesn't block the transactions. > Can we do few modifications like: improve those latencies --> reduce those latencies such slow standby --> a slow standby -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. 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
