Re: Proposal: recent access based routing for primary-replica setups

public inbox for [email protected]  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Proposal: recent access based routing for primary-replica setups
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 19:30:12 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACeKOO3QSDbwhg3NdFSAavcZ79H5VGR8=XCe4wsN4sCCyvoYVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACeKOO23dZSC6okH_YtChEb49YFLuJrwRxC7aVaHzbdX4-fZJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CACeKOO3QSDbwhg3NdFSAavcZ79H5VGR8=XCe4wsN4sCCyvoYVQ@mail.gmail.com>

> Hi Tatsuo,
> 
> Sorry for the late reply - I'm traveling with my family at the moment (in
> Japan actually) 

Excellent! Hope you and your family are spending great time in Japan.

> and might be delayed in responding.

No problem at all. I think you should focus on the travel at this
moment.

> Re your points:
> 1 - we can, but I have to say that a user I tend to prefer configuration
> values not have a "magic" value that does something different than the
> usual case like this would create. I'd stick with what we already have
> planned. happy to hear from others on the mailing list as well of course.

Makes sense. I withdraw my proposal.

> 2 - I think we can have the primary always be the first or we can
> completely remove it since it might be redundant as it's always going to be
> 0. what do you think?

What I am not sure is, whether we can assume the command always knows
which host (or IP) is primary? If the answer is yes, then we could
omit the primary. What do you think?

> 3 - I agree with you, next version (after we clear everything else) will
> have only ip/hostname+port.

Thank you for understanding.

> Let me know your thoughts
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 9:42 AM Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nadav Shatz
> Tailor Brands | CTO

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Proposal: recent access based routing for primary-replica setups
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox