| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-05-27 09:12:36 |
| Message-ID: | 1274951556.6203.4015.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 10:09 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> No, not necessarily. As I said above, you might just want a guarantee
> that *if* you query the standby, you get up-to-date results.
Of course. COMMIT was already one of the options, so this comment was
already understood.
What we are discussing is whether additional options exist and/or are
desirable. We should not be forcing everybody to COMMIT whether or not
it is robust.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-27 09:30:55 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-05-27 09:01:04 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |