On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > We definitely have the time, so the question is, what are the best > ideas?
Before advancing the review of each patch, we must determine what should be committed in 9.1, and what's in this CF. "Synchronization level on per-transaction" feature is included in Simon's patch, but not in mine. This is most important difference, which would have wide-reaching impact on the implementation, e.g., protocol between walsender and walreceiver. So, at first we should determine whether we'll commit the feature in 9.1. Then we need to determine how far we should implement in this CF. Thought? Each patch provides "synchronization level on per-standby" feature. In Simon's patch, that level is specified in the standbys's recovery.conf. In mine, it's in the master's standbys.conf. I think that the former is simpler. But if we support the capability to register the standbys, the latter would be required. Which is the best? Simon's patch seems to include simple quorum commit feature (correct me if I'm wrong). That is, when there are multiple synchronous standbys, the master waits until ACK has arrived from at least one standby. OTOH, in my patch, the master waits until ACK has arrived from all the synchronous standbys. Which should we choose? I think that we should commit my straightforward approach first, and enable the quorum commit on that. Thought? Simon proposes to invoke walwriter in the standby. This is not included in my patch, but looks good idea. ISTM that this is not essential feature for synchronous replication, so how about detachmenting of the walwriter part from the patch and reviewing it independently? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
