Horton

Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node

Steve Singer <steve@ssinger.info>

View thread
From: Steve Singer <steve@ssinger.info>
To: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2012-06-19T02:26:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Don't waste the last segment of each 4GB logical log file.

  2. Stamp HEAD as 9.3devel.

  3. Wake WALSender to reduce data loss at failover for async commit.

  4. Make the visibility map crash-safe.

On 12-06-18 11:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi Simon,

> I think we need to agree on the parameter name. It currently is
> 'multimaster_node_id'. In the discussion with Steve we got to
> "replication_node_id". I don't particularly like either.
>
> Other suggestions?
>
Other things that come to mind (for naming this parameter in the 
postgresql.conf)

node_id
origin_node_id
local_node_id
> I wished we had some flag bits available before as well. I find 256 nodes a
> pretty low value to start with though, 4096 sounds better though, so I would
> be happy with 4 flag bits. I think for cascading setups and such you want to
> add node ids for every node, not only masters...
>
> Any opinions from others on this?
>

256 sounds a bit low to me as well.  Sometimes the use case of a retail 
chain comes up where people want each store to have a postgresql 
instance and replicate back to a central office.  I can think of many 
chains with more than 256 stores.



> Thanks,
>
> Andres