On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 10:57 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > I also strongly believe that we should get single-standby > functionality committed and tested *first*, before working further on > multi-standby.
Yes, lets get k = 1 first. With k = 1 the number of standbys is not limited, so we can still have very robust and highly available architectures. So we mean "first-acknowledgement-releases-waiters". > (1) Consistency: this is another DBA-false-confidence issue. DBAs who > implement (1) are liable to do so thinking that they are not only > guaranteeing the consistency of every standby with the master, but the > consistency of every standby with every other standby -- a kind of > dummy multi-master. They are not, so it will take multiple reminders > and workarounds in the docs to explain this. And we'll get complaints > anyway. This puts the matter very clearly. Setting k = N is not as good an idea as it sounds when first described. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
