Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >>>> Quorum commit, even with configurable vote weights, can't handle a >>>> requirement that a particular commit be replicated to (A || B) && (C >>>> || D). >>> Good point.
So I've been trying to come up with something manually and failed. I blame the fever — without it maybe I wouldn't have tried… Now, if you want this level of precision in the setup, all we seem to be missing from the quorum facility as currently proposed would be to have a quorum list instead (or a max, but that's not helping the "easy" side). Given those weights: A3 B2 C4 D4 you can ask for a quorum of 6 and you're covered for your case, except that C&&D is when you reach the quorum but don't have what you asked. Have the quorum input accept [6,7] and it's easy to setup. Do we want that? > If not, it seems like standby registration is not *required* for 9.1. I > still tend to think it would be nice to have from a DBA perspective, but > we should separate required from "nice to have". +1. -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
