On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 22:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > First, we should be clear to explain that you are referring to the fact
> > that the request
> > synchronous_commit = off
> > synchronous_replication = on
> > makes no sense in the way the replication system is currently designed,
> > even though it is a wish-list item to make it work in 9.2+
> What exactly do you mean by "make it work"? We can either (1) wait
> for the local commit and the remote commit (synchronous_commit=on,
> synchronous_replication=on), (2) wait for the local commit only
> (synchronous_commit=on, synchronous_replication=off), or (3) wait for
> neither (synchronous_commit=off, synchronous_replication=off).
> There's no fourth possible behavior, AFAICS.
Currently, no, since as we discussed earlier we currently need to fsync
WAL locally before it gets sent to standby.
> The question is whether synchronous_commit=off,
> synchronous_replication=on should behave like (1) or (3)
Yes, that is the right question.
> You have it as #1; I'm arguing
> it should be #3. I realize it's an arguable point; I'm just arguing
> for what makes most sense to me.
Various comments follow on thread. We can pick this up once we've
committed the main patch.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2011-02-28 21:13:35|
|Subject: Re: Sync Rep v17|
|Previous:||From: Michael Glaesemann||Date: 2011-02-28 21:08:25|
|Subject: OSSP gone missing? Fate of UUID?|