On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 20:26 -0700, Joshua Tolley wrote:
> 2) initiate fsync on the primary first
> > - In this case, the slave is always slightly behind. If if your
> > primary falls over, you don't give commit messages to the clients,
> > if it recovers, it might have committed data, and slaves will still
> > able to catch up.
> > The thing is that currently, even without replication, #2 can
> For what little it's worth, I vote for this option, because it's a
> problem that can already happen (as opposed to adding an entirely new
> type of problem to the mix).
This proposal provides #2, so your wish is met.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-12-31 12:10:36|
|Subject: Re: Old git repo|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-12-31 11:48:57|
|Subject: Re: Sync Rep Design|