Re: Configuring synchronous replication
Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>
From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-09-17T19:32:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 21:20 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> According to what I heard, some people want to guarantee that all the >> transactions are *always* written in *all* the synchronous standbys. > > You don't need standby registration at all. You can do that with a > single parameter, already proposed: > > quorum_commit = N. I think you also need another parameter to control the behavior upon timeout. You received less than N votes, now what? You're current idea seems to be COMMIT, Aidan says ROLLBACK, and I say that's to be a GUC set at the transaction level. As far as registration goes, I see no harm to have the master maintain a list of known standby systems, of course, it's just maintaining that list from the master that I don't understand the use case for. Regards, -- dim