| From: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2010-09-17 13:59:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20100917135943.GE12415@oak.highrise.ca |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
* Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> [100917 07:57]:
> Synchronous replication is basically used to reduce the
> downtime, and "wait forever" option opposes that.
Hm... I'm not sure I'ld agree with that. I'ld rather have some
downtime, and my data available, then have less downtime, but find that
I'm missing valuable data that was committed, but happend to not be
replicated because no slave was available "yet".
Sync rep is about "data availability", "data recoverability", *and*
"downtime". The three are definitely related, but each use has their
own tradeoffs.
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-09-17 15:22:20 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2010-09-17 13:36:00 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-17 14:08:27 | Re: Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2010-09-17 13:36:00 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |