Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2012-01-13 Thread Alexander Björnhagen
At this point I feel that this new functionality might be a bit overkill for postgres, maybe it's better to stay lean and mean rather than add a controversial feature like this. I also agree that a more general replication timeout variable would be more useful to a larger audience but that would

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-27 Thread Alexander Björnhagen
Okay, Here’s version 3 then, which piggy-backs on the existing flag : synchronous_commit = on | off | local | fallback Where “fallback” now means “fall back from sync replication when no (suitable) standbys are connected”. This was done on input from Guillaume Lelarge. That said, I agree

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Alexander Björnhagen
Hello and thank you for your feedback I appreciate it. Updated patch : sync-standalone-v2.patch I am sorry to be spamming the list but I just cleaned it up a little bit, wrote better comments and tried to move most of the logic into syncrep.c since that's where it belongs anyway and also fixed a

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Alexander Björnhagen
Interesting discussion! Basically I like this whole idea, but I'd like to know why do you think this functionality is required? How should a synchronous master handle the situation where all standbys have failed ? Well, I think this is one of those cases where you could argue either way.

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Alexander Björnhagen
Hmm, I suppose this conversation would lend itself better to a whiteboard or a maybe over a few beers instead of via e-mail ... Basically I like this whole idea, but I'd like to know why do you think this functionality is required? How should a synchronous master handle the situation where

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Alexander Björnhagen
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Guillaume Lelarge guilla...@lelarge.info wrote: On Mon, 2011-12-26 at 16:23 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 15:59, Alexander Björnhagen alex.bjornha...@gmail.com wrote: Basically I like this whole idea, but I'd like to know why do you

[HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-25 Thread Alexander Björnhagen
Hi all, I’m new here so maybe someone else already has this in the works ? Anyway, proposed change/patch : Add a new parameter : synchronous_standalone_master = on | off To control whether a master configured with synchronous_commit = on is allowed to stop waiting for standby WAL sync when