(Seems like you forgot to push the Reply-all button) On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Madovsky wrote: > On 10/3/2015 3:30 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> and no reason is given to justify *why* this would be needed in your case > reason for a choice can be often an issue for other :D > > I thought that postgresql 9.4 user could change on the fly with > synchronous_commit from local to on for ex > which hotstandby would become in sync and which in async to avoid a big > latency in case of let's say 100 hot standby. > it was an idea, a concept to let the master write and update the nodes, like > a queen bee ;) > but I'm afraid it's not possible, so maybe future version of pg will do it, > for now read from the master is my only solution. Well, Thomas Munro (adding him in CC) has sent for integration with 9.6 a patch that would cover your need, by adding to synchronous_commit a mode called 'apply', in which case a master would wait for the transaction to be applied on standby before committing locally: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm=1fqkivL4V-OTPHwSgw4aF9HcoGiMrCW-yBtjipX9gsag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Perhaps you could help with the review of the patch, this has stalled a bit lately. Regards, -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
