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)
