On 31.12.2010 09:50, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On 30.12.2010 22:27, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Simon Riggs<si...@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
synchronous_replication (boolean)
Specifies whether transaction commit will wait for WAL records
to be replicated before the command returns a "success"
indication to the client.
The word "replicated" here could be taken to mean different things,
most obviously:
- slave has received the WAL
- slave has fsync'd the WAL
- slave has applied the WAL
Perhaps the level of "replication guarantee" should be decided on the
slave side, by
having a configuration parameter there
report_as_replicated = received|written_to_disk|fsynced|applied
for different types of hosts may have wildly different guarantees and
performance
parameters for these. One could envision a WAL-archive type "standby"
which is
there for data persistence only will and never "apply" WAL.
Agreed, it feels natural to specify when a piece of WAL is acknowledged
in the standby.
Regarding the rest of the proposal, I would still prefer the UI
discussed here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4cae030a.2060...@enterprisedb.com
It ought to be the same amount of work to implement, and provides the
same feature set, but makes administration a bit easier by being able to
name the standbys. Also, I dislike the idea of having the standby
specify that it's a synchronous standby that the master has to wait for.
Behavior on the master should be configured on the master.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
