On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
> I'm not good at composition, so I cannot insist on my
> proposal. For the convenience of others, here is the proposal
> from Fujii-san.
>
Do you see any problem with the below proposal? To me, this sounds reasonable.
> + A quorum-based synchronous replication is basically more efficient than
> + a priority-based one when you specify multiple standbys in
> + <varname>synchronous_standby_names</> and want to replicate
> + the transactions to some of them synchronously. In this case,
> + the transactions in a priority-based synchronous replication must wait for
> + reply from the slowest standby in synchronous standbys chosen based on
> + their priorities, and which may increase the transaction latencies.
> + On the other hand, using a quorum-based synchronous replication may
> + improve those latencies because it makes the transactions wait only for
> + replies from the requested number of faster standbys in all the listed
> + standbys, i.e., such slow standby doesn't block the transactions.
>
Can we do few modifications like:
improve those latencies --> reduce those latencies
such slow standby --> a slow standby
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
