On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:16 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 07:48:25PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> I proposed to implement the "return-immediately" at first because it
>> doesn't require standby registration. But if many people think that
>> the "wait-forever" is the core rather than the "return-immediately",
>> I'll follow them. We can implement the "return-immediately" after
>> that.
>
> In my experience, most people who want "synchronous" behavior are
> willing to put up with "wait forever," especially when asynchronous
> behavior is already available.
>
> In short, +1 for "push 'wait forever' soonest."
I have one question for clarity:
If we make all the transactions wait until specified standbys have
connected to the master, how do we take a base backup from the
master for those standbys? We seem to be unable to do that because
pg_start_backup also waits forever. Is this right?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
