Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, fazool mein <fazoolmein@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-09-02T14:17:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 08:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > "All standbys" has no meaning without registration. It is not a question >> > that needs an answer. >> >> Tell that to the DBA. I bet s/he knows what "all standbys" means. >> The fact that the system doesn't know something doesn't make it >> unimportant. > >> I agree that we don't absolutely need standby registration for some >> really basic version of synchronous replication. But I think we'd be >> better off biting the bullet and adding it. I think that without it >> we're going to resort to a series of increasingly grotty and >> user-unfriendly hacks to make this work. > > I'm personally quite happy to have server registration. OK, thanks for clarifying. > My interest is in ensuring we have master-controlled robustness, which > is so far being ignored because "we need simple". Refrring to above, we > are clearly quite willing to go beyond the most basic implementation, so > there's no further argument to exclude it for that reason. > > The implementation of master-controlled robustness is no more difficult > than the alternative. But I'm not sure I quite follow this part. I don't think I know what you mean by "master-controlled robustness". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company