Horton

Re: Standalone synchronous master

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rastogi@huawei.com>
Cc: Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>, Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>, Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, MauMau <maumau307@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-01-24T21:29:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 01/24/2014 12:47 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> ISTM the consensus is that we need better monitoring/administration
> interfaces so that people can script the behavior they want in external
> tools. Also, a new synchronous apply replication mode would be handy,
> but that'd be a whole different patch. We don't have a patch on the
> table that we could consider committing any time soon, so I'm going to
> mark this as rejected in the commitfest app.

I don't feel that "we'll never do auto-degrade" is determinative;
several hackers were for auto-degrade, and they have a good use-case
argument.  However, we do have consensus that we need more scaffolding
than this patch supplies in order to make auto-degrade *safe*.

I encourage the submitter to resumbit and improved version of this patch
(one with more monitorability) for  9.5 CF1.  That'll give us a whole
dev cycle to argue about it.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com