At Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:21:29 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote in <cad21aobqpmzq3hnljoraj1px__bqo9xwuhsx9hzaewdbqp9...@mail.gmail.com> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > >> > >> I'm not good at composition, so I cannot insist on my > >> proposal. For the convenience of others, here is the proposal > >> from Fujii-san. > >> > > > > Do you see any problem with the below proposal? > > To me, this sounds reasonable. > > I agree.
Ok, I give up:p Thanks for shoving me. > >> + A quorum-based synchronous replication is basically more efficient > >> than > >> + a priority-based one when you specify multiple standbys in > >> + <varname>synchronous_standby_names</> and want to replicate > >> + the transactions to some of them synchronously. In this case, > >> + the transactions in a priority-based synchronous replication must > >> wait for > >> + reply from the slowest standby in synchronous standbys chosen based > >> on > >> + their priorities, and which may increase the transaction latencies. > >> + On the other hand, using a quorum-based synchronous replication may > >> + improve those latencies because it makes the transactions wait only > >> for > >> + replies from the requested number of faster standbys in all the > >> listed > >> + standbys, i.e., such slow standby doesn't block the transactions. > >> > > > > Can we do few modifications like: > > improve those latencies --> reduce those latencies > > such slow standby --> a slow standby > > > > -- > > With Regards, > > Amit Kapila. > > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > Regards, > > -- > Masahiko Sawada > NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION > NTT Open Source Software Center -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
