On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> >> I'm not good at composition, so I cannot insist on my >> proposal. For the convenience of others, here is the proposal >> from Fujii-san. >> > > Do you see any problem with the below proposal? > To me, this sounds reasonable.
I agree. > >> + A quorum-based synchronous replication is basically more efficient than >> + a priority-based one when you specify multiple standbys in >> + <varname>synchronous_standby_names</> and want to replicate >> + the transactions to some of them synchronously. In this case, >> + the transactions in a priority-based synchronous replication must wait >> for >> + reply from the slowest standby in synchronous standbys chosen based on >> + their priorities, and which may increase the transaction latencies. >> + On the other hand, using a quorum-based synchronous replication may >> + improve those latencies because it makes the transactions wait only for >> + replies from the requested number of faster standbys in all the listed >> + standbys, i.e., such slow standby doesn't block the transactions. >> > > Can we do few modifications like: > improve those latencies --> reduce those latencies > such slow standby --> a slow standby > > -- > With Regards, > Amit Kapila. > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada 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
