On 12 November 2015 at 18:25, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com>

>  I don't want to get bogged down in details, while we're talking about the
> 30,000 foot view).

Hmm, if that's where we're at, I'll summarize my thoughts.

All of this discussion presupposes we are distributing/load balancing
queries so that reads and writes might occur on different nodes.

We need a good balancer. Any discussion of this that ignores the balancer
component is only talking about half the solution. What we need to do is
decide whether functionality should live in the balancer or the core.

Your option (1) is viable, but only in certain cases. We could add support
for some token/wait mechanism but as you say, this would require
application changes not pooler changes.

Your option (2) is wider but also worse in some ways. It can be implemented
in a pooler.

Your option (3) doesn't excite me much. You've got a load of stuff that
really should happen in a pooler. And at its core we have
synchronous_commit = apply but with a timeout rather than a wait. So
anyway, consider me nudged to finish my patch to provide capability for
that by 1 Jan.

On a related note, any further things like "GUC causal_reads_standby_names"
should be implemented by Node Registry as a named group of nodes. We can
have as many arbitrary groups of nodes as we want. If that sounds strange
look back at exactly why GUCs are called GUCs.

Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Reply via email to