Re: DRAFT 9.6 release
Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.advocacy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAB7nPqQEotArpda90uc_d__Bjt+vM+LHUJw6ZzpgC9XA7D4ZsQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Josh Berkus <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ) Yes. > That is, if each pseudo-group is a data center, then that arrangement > makes a lot of sense. Oh, well, waiting for 10. I was referring to the wait behavior where multiple standbys use the same application_name, which is what you complained about AFAIK. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy