From: Laurenz Albe [mailto:laurenz.albe@cybertec.at]
> Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > I'm sorry to repeat myself, but anyway, I think we need a method to connect
> to a standby
> > as the original desire, because the primary instance may be read only
> by default while
> > only limited users update data. That's for reducing the burdon on the
> primary and
> > minimizing the impact on users who update data. For example,
> >
> > * run data reporting on the standby
> > * backup the database from the standby
> > * cascade replication from the standby
>
> I see.
>
> But then the new value should not be called "prefer-read", because that
> would be
> misleading. It would also not be related to the existing "read-write".
>
> For what you have in mind, there should be the options "primary-required"
> and
> "standby-preferred", however we implement them.
Yes, that's what I'm proposing and expecting with a new parameter whose naming follows PgJDBC's.
> Have there been a lot of complaints that the existing "read-write" is not
> good
> enough to detect replication primaries?
I haven't heard anything. I guess almost nobody uses default_transaction_read_only.
Before that, see the description of target_session_attr:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/libpq-connect.html#LIBPQ-PARAMKEYWORDS
I'm afraid most users don't know whether they can connect to the primary/standby. Just searching "primary", "master"
or"standby" in this page doesn't show anything relevant.
> One use case I can think of is logical replication (or other replication
> methods like
> Slony). You can use the feature by setting default_transaction_read_only
> = on
> on the standby.
I know that, but I suspect that's really a practical use case. Anyway, I'm OK with relying on target_session_attr to
fulfillthat need.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
