On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:07 AM, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postg...@cybertec.at> wrote: >> On 18 Aug 2015, at 11:19, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at> wrote: >> >> Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote: >>> in addition to that you have the “problem” of transactions. if you failover >>> in the middle >>> of a transaction, strange things might happen from the application point of >>> view. >>> >>> the good thing, however, is that stupid middleware is sometimes not able to >>> handle >>> failed connections. however, overall i think it is more of a danger than a >>> benefit. >> >> Maybe I misunderstood the original proposal, but my impression was that the >> alternative >> servers would be tried only at the time the connection is established, and >> there would be no >> such problems as you describe. > > it would still leave the problem of having a read only on the other side > unless you are using BDR or so.
That doesn't make this a bad idea. Some people are using replication solutions that can cope with this already (EDB has a proprietary product, and I'm sure there are people using BDR, too) and, as the solutions get better and more widely deployed, more people will want to do it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
