On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: > On 01/04/2011 07:51 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 10:28 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >>> The relevant question is: which configuration(s) can we have ready for >>> the next CommitFest and alpha release? >> >> Based upon that series of conversations, I've reworked the design so >> that there is (currently) only a single standby offering sync rep at any >> one time. Other standbys can request to be sync standbys but they only >> become the sync standby if the first one fails. Which was simple to do >> and bridges the challenges of an exactly identified sync standby and the >> fragility of too closely specifying the config. > > ah cool - like that approach for 9.1!
Yeah, I like that idea too, on first blush. I think we should think it over and see whether we're committing ourselves to any design decisions we may later regret - what parameters will we need to add from that point to get all the configs we ultimately want to support? But it seems a reasonable starting point, and we can argue about the rest once we have working code. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers