Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavan Deolasee
Subject Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup
Date
Msg-id CABOikdM7x=p0ymKNrVV6P+9Z77UpzkraV7F_4GSu2CDXQHUW+w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup  (Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup  (Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers



On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:


--------------------
[Server]
standby_name = 'slave1'
synchronous_transfer = commit
wal_sender_timeout = 30
[Server]
standby_name = 'slave2'
synchronous_transfer = all
wal_sender_timeout = 50
-------------------

What different values/modes you are thinking for synchronous_transfer ? IMHO only "commit" and "all" may not be enough. As I suggested upthread, we may need an additional mode, say "data", which will ensure synchronous WAL transfer before making any file system changes. We need this separate mode because the failback safe (or whatever we call it) standby need not wait on the commits and it's important to avoid that wait since it comes in a direct path of client transactions.

If we are doing it, I wonder if an additional mode "none" also makes sense so that users can also control asynchronous standbys via the same mechanism.

Thanks,
Pavan

--
Pavan Deolasee
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Steve Singer
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix conversion for Decimal arguments in plpython functions
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List