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