Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2025 09:39:44 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20250909.093944.156562835222886259.ishii@postgresql.org>
To: nadav@tailorbrands.com
Cc: pgpool-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: recent access based routing for primary-replica
 setups
From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACeKOO23dZSC6okH_YtChEb49YFLuJrwRxC7aVaHzbdX4-fZJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CACeKOO2-14PPvBNeDn=Qf7X9OKu-WkyYxj0N61n9=60iz0QjFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20250908.092628.942175382089863152.ishii@postgresql.org>
	<CACeKOO23dZSC6okH_YtChEb49YFLuJrwRxC7aVaHzbdX4-fZJA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20250909.093944.156562835222886259.ishii%40postgresql.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Nadav,

> Hi Tatsuo,
> 
> Please find attached the 3 patch files (implementation, tests, docs) with
> the updates we discussed.
> 
> What do you think?

I haven't read the code details yet but I have a few questions.

1) Can we use only replication_delay_source_cmd and if it's value is
   'builtin', then we treat it as replication_delay_source = builtin?
   Maybe this is matter of taste but I would like to know your
   opinion.

2) replication_delay_source_cmd will be given an ordered list of
   instance identifiers. But it seems there's no way for the command
   which one is the primary instance. Is it okay for the command?

3) Why do you have 3 kind of instance identifiers (application name,
   hostname (IP) + port and node id? I thought "hostname (IP) + port"
   is sufficient.

Comments?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp