Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There was a discussion on support for N synchronous standby servers started
>>> by Michael. Refer
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqR9c84ig0ZUvhMQAMq53VQsD4rC82vYci4Dr27PVOFf9w@mail.gmail.com
>>> . The use of hooks and dedicated language was suggested, however, it seemed
>>> to be an overkill for the scenario and there was no consensus on this.
>>> Exploring GUC-land was preferred.
>>
>> Cool.
>>
>>> Please find attached a patch,  built on Michael's patch from above mentioned
>>> thread, which supports choosing different number of nodes from each set i.e.
>>> k nodes from set 1, l nodes from set 2, so on.
>>> The format of synchronous_standby_names has been updated to standby name
>>> followed by the required count separated by hyphen. Ex: 'aa-1, bb-3'.  The
>>> transaction waits for all the specified number of standby in each group. Any
>>> extra nodes with the same name will be considered potential. The special
>>> entry * for the standby name is also supported.
>>
>> I don't think that this is going in the good direction, what was
>> suggested mainly by Robert was to use a micro-language that would
>> allow far more extensibility that what you are proposing. See for
>> example CA+TgmobPWoeNMMEpfx0jWRvQufxVbqRv26Ezq_XHk21GxrXo9w@mail.gmail.com
>> for some ideas.
>
> Doesn't this approach prevent us from specifying the "potential" synchronous
> standby server? For example, imagine the case where you want to treat
> the server AAA as synchronous standby. You also want to use the server BBB
> as synchronous standby only if the server AAA goes down. IOW, you want to
> prefer to the server AAA as synchronous standby rather than BBB.
> Currently we can easily set up that case by just setting
> synchronous_standby_names as follows.
>
>     synchronous_standby_names = 'AAA, BBB'
>
> However, after we adopt the quorum commit feature with the proposed
> macro-language, how can we set up that case? It seems impossible...
> I'm afraid that this might be a backward compatibility issue.

Like that:
synchronous_standby_names = 'AAA, BBB'
The thing is that we need to support the old grammar as well to be
fully backward compatible, and that's actually equivalent to that in
the grammar: 1(AAA,BBB,CCC). This is something I understood was
included in Robert's draft proposal.

> Or we should extend the proposed micro-language so that it also can handle
> the priority of each standby servers? Not sure that's possible, though.

I am not sure that's really necessary, we need only to be able to
manage priorities within each subgroup. Putting it in a shape that
user can understand easily in pg_stat_replication looks more
challenging though. We are going to need a new view like
pg_stat_replication group that shows up the priority status of each
group, with one record for each group, taking into account that a
group can be included in another one.
-- 
Michael