> 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.
So, two things:
1) This version of Standby Registration seems to add One More Damn Place
You Need To Configure Standby (OMDPYNTCS) without adding any
functionality you couldn't get *without* having a list on the master.
Can someone explain to me what functionality is added by this approach
vs. not having a list on the master at all?
2) I see Simon's approach where you can designate not just synch/asynch,
but synch *mode* per session to be valuable. I can imagine having
transactions I just want to "ack" vs. transactions I want to "apply"
according to application logic (e.g. customer personal information vs.
financial transactions). This approach would still seem to remove that
functionality. Does it?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
