Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Date
Msg-id CAHGQGwEKOw=SmPLxJzkBsH6wwDBgOnVz46QjHbtsiZ-d-2RGUg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Attached is the modified version of the patch. Barring objections, I will
>> commit this version.
>
> There is a whitespace:
> $ git diff master --check
> src/backend/replication/syncrep.c:39: trailing whitespace.
> + *

Okey, pushed the patch with this fix. Thanks!

Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We should work on
and complete them until the release.

(1)
Which synchronous replication method, priority or quorum, should be
chosen when neither FIRST nor ANY is specified in s_s_names? Right now,
a priority-based sync replication is chosen for keeping backward
compatibility. However some hackers argued to change this decision
so that a quorum commit is chosen because they think that most users
prefer to a quorum.

(2)
There will be still many source comments and documentations that
we need to update, for example, in high-availability.sgml. We need to
check and update them throughly.

(3)
The priority value is assigned to each standby listed in s_s_names
even in quorum commit though those priority values are not used at all.
Users can see those priority values in pg_stat_replication.
Isn't this confusing? If yes, it might be better to always assign 1 as
the priority, for example.


Any other?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
Next
From: Steve Singer
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP