Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 21:20 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> According to what I heard, some people want to guarantee that all the >> transactions are *always* written in *all* the synchronous standbys. > > You don't need standby registration at all. You can do that with a > single parameter, already proposed: > > quorum_commit = N.
I think you also need another parameter to control the behavior upon timeout. You received less than N votes, now what? You're current idea seems to be COMMIT, Aidan says ROLLBACK, and I say that's to be a GUC set at the transaction level. As far as registration goes, I see no harm to have the master maintain a list of known standby systems, of course, it's just maintaining that list from the master that I don't understand the use case for. 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
