| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep Design |
| Date: | 2010-12-31 11:51:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1293796315.1892.37351.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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,
> but
> > if it recovers, it might have committed data, and slaves will still
> be
> > able to catch up.
> >
> > The thing is that currently, even without replication, #2 can
> happen.
>
> 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-31 12:10:36 | Re: Old git repo |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-12-31 11:48:57 | Re: Sync Rep Design |