On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:16 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 07:48:25PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> I proposed to implement the "return-immediately" at first because it >> doesn't require standby registration. But if many people think that >> the "wait-forever" is the core rather than the "return-immediately", >> I'll follow them. We can implement the "return-immediately" after >> that. > > In my experience, most people who want "synchronous" behavior are > willing to put up with "wait forever," especially when asynchronous > behavior is already available. > > In short, +1 for "push 'wait forever' soonest."
I have one question for clarity: If we make all the transactions wait until specified standbys have connected to the master, how do we take a base backup from the master for those standbys? We seem to be unable to do that because pg_start_backup also waits forever. Is this right? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
