Re: DRAFT 9.6 release
Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.advocacy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAB7nPqSHNH+XqHZAohgf5W=uraa4-zRSBm5Fa5vas7q-cM8BfA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA) <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:pgsql-advocacy- >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus >> 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? > > For me the press-worthy side of this in its current state is that it allows for a no-data loss guarantee in the event of a network partition. > > Having more than two sync copies of data is pretty major in my opinion as well. Yes, the case described by Josh is rather narrow as most users are not going to use the same application_name for multiple standbys. Combined with synchronous_commit = remote_apply what you actually have is the guarantee that WAL has been applied synchronously to multiple nodes, allowing for read balancing. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy