On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 08:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 12:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> >>> 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. > > > > Asking for quorum_commit = 3 would cover that requirement. > > > > Not exactly as requested, but in a way that is both simpler to express > > and requires no changes to configuration after failover. ISTM better to > > have a single parameter than 5 separate configuration files, with > > behaviour that the community would not easily be able to validate. > > That's just not the same thing.
In what important ways does it differ? In both cases, no reply will be received until both sites have confirmed receipt. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
