On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> 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 )
Yes.
> That is, if each pseudo-group is a data center, then that arrangement
> makes a lot of sense. Oh, well, waiting for 10.
I was referring to the wait behavior where multiple standbys use the
same application_name, which is what you complained about AFAIK.
--
Michael
