On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> At least a set of hooks has the merit to say: do what you like with >> your synchronous node policy. > > Sure. I dunno if people will find that terribly user-friendly, so we > might not want that to be the ONLY thing we offer. Well, user-friendly interface is actually the reason why a simple GUC integer was used in the first series of patches present on this thread to set as sync the N-nodes with the lowest priority. I could not come up with something more simple. Hence what about doing the following: - A patch refactoring code for pg_stat_get_wal_senders and SyncRepReleaseWaiters as there is in either case duplicated code in this area to select the synchronous node as the one connected with lowest priority - A patch defining the hooks necessary, I suspect that two of them are necessary as mentioned upthread. - A patch for a contrib module implementing an example of simple policy. It can be a fancy thing with a custom language or even a more simple thing. Thoughts? Patch 1 refactoring the code is a win in all cases. Regards, -- Michael
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
