Re: DRAFT 9.6 release
Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.advocacy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 08/31/2016 07:13 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Yes that's the case. If for example I have a set of slaves like that: > application_name | replay_delta | sync_priority | sync_state > ------------------+--------------+---------------+------------ > node1 | 0 | 1 | sync > node1 | 0 | 1 | sync > node1 | 0 | 1 | potential > node2 | 0 | 2 | potential > node2 | 0 | 2 | potential > node2 | 0 | 2 | potential > node3 | 0 | 0 | async > node3 | 0 | 0 | async > node3 | 0 | 0 | async > =# show synchronous_standby_names ; > synchronous_standby_names > --------------------------- > 2(node1, node2) > > You'd need to have the confirmation to come from two nodes with node1 > as application_name because those have the higher priority in the > list. So, I have to say, this doesn't *feel* like a major press-worthy feature yet. It will be in 10, but is it right now? -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own) -- Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy