On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> 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?
Well, then you couldn't have one strictly synchronous standby and one asynchronous standby. > 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? I'm not totally sure. I think we could probably avoid removing that with careful detailed design. -- 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
