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

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date
Msg-id CANP8+jJb6f43xvwKRaMx7fpBPB4F-zDcaS1wqyMDu2HNDojD=g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 5 April 2016 at 10:10, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-04-04 10:35:34 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 4 April 2016 at 09:28, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Barring any objections, I'll commit this patch.
>
> No objection here either, just one question: Has anybody thought about
> the ability to extend this to do per-database syncrep?

Nope at least for me... You'd like to extend synchronous_standby_names
so that users can specify that per-database?

As requested, I did consider whether we could have syntax for per-database settings.

ISTM that it is already possible to have one database in async mode and another in sync mode, using settings of synchronous_commit.

The easiest way to have per-database settings if you want more is to use different instances. Adding a dbname into the syntax would complicate it significantly and even if we agreed that, I don't think it would happen for 9.6. The lack of per-database settings is not a blocker for me.

--
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Yet another small patch - reorderbuffer.c:1099
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Yet another small patch - reorderbuffer.c:1099