Re: DRAFT 9.6 release
Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.advocacy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 09/01/2016 04:56 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > 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. It's not narrow if you think of it this way: 2 ( north_carolina, oregon, californa ) That is, if each pseudo-group is a data center, then that arrangement makes a lot of sense. Oh, well, waiting for 10. -- -- 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