Re: DRAFT 9.6 release
Robert Haas <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.advocacy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sep 3, 2016, at 1:39 AM, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 07:50:58AM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: >> But if you have BOTH features, then you can set >> synchronous_standby_names to require an ACK from *every* standby, and >> you can set synchronous_commit=remote_apply so that you wait for WAL >> to be applied, not just fsync'd, and now you are guaranteed that >> whenever you make a change on the master and then read it back from >> any one of your read-replicas, it will be there! And that, IMHO, is >> pretty cool. > > Are we clear on how useful this will be because of the delay in applying > WAL, particularly for when conflicting read-only queries are running? Not entirely, but people are already doing read-scaling with replicas, so having an option to make that reliable seems like a good thing. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy