On 5 April 2016 at 10:10, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2016-04-04 10:35:34 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On 4 April 2016 at 09:28, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Barring any objections, I'll commit this patch.
> >
> > No objection here either, just one question: Has anybody thought about
> > the ability to extend this to do per-database syncrep?
> Nope at least for me... You'd like to extend synchronous_standby_names
> so that users can specify that per-database?

As requested, I did consider whether we could have syntax for per-database

ISTM that it is already possible to have one database in async mode and
another in sync mode, using settings of synchronous_commit.

The easiest way to have per-database settings if you want more is to use
different instances. Adding a dbname into the syntax would complicate it
significantly and even if we agreed that, I don't think it would happen for
9.6. The lack of per-database settings is not a blocker for me.

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

Reply via email to