On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 10/7/10 10:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> The standby name is a GUC in the standby's configuration file: >> >> standby_name='bostonserver' >> >> The list of important nodes is also a GUC, in the master's configuration >> file: >> >> synchronous_standbys='bostonserver, oxfordserver' > > This seems to abandon Simon's concept of per-transaction synchronization > control. That seems like such a potentially useful feature that I'm > reluctant to abandon it just for administrative elegance. > > Does this work together with that in some way I can't see?
I think they work together fine. Greg's idea is that you list the important standbys, and a synchronization guarantee that you'd like to have for at least one of them. Simon's idea - at least at 10,000 feet - is that you can take a pass on that guarantee for transactions that don't need it. I don't see why you can't have both. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
