On 12 November 2015 at 18:25, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> I don't want to get bogged down in details, while we're talking about the > 30,000 foot view). > Hmm, if that's where we're at, I'll summarize my thoughts. All of this discussion presupposes we are distributing/load balancing queries so that reads and writes might occur on different nodes. We need a good balancer. Any discussion of this that ignores the balancer component is only talking about half the solution. What we need to do is decide whether functionality should live in the balancer or the core. Your option (1) is viable, but only in certain cases. We could add support for some token/wait mechanism but as you say, this would require application changes not pooler changes. Your option (2) is wider but also worse in some ways. It can be implemented in a pooler. Your option (3) doesn't excite me much. You've got a load of stuff that really should happen in a pooler. And at its core we have synchronous_commit = apply but with a timeout rather than a wait. So anyway, consider me nudged to finish my patch to provide capability for that by 1 Jan. On a related note, any further things like "GUC causal_reads_standby_names" should be implemented by Node Registry as a named group of nodes. We can have as many arbitrary groups of nodes as we want. If that sounds strange look back at exactly why GUCs are called GUCs. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
