| From: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: quorum commit Re: Synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2010-07-26 09:31:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4C4D5607.4020708@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao wrote:
> In the following case, how should quorum commit behave?
>
> 1. quorum_standbys = 2; there are three connected synchronous standbys
> 2. One standby sends the ACK back and fails
> 3. The ACK arrives from another standby
> 4. How should quorum commit behave?
>
> (a) Transaction commit returns a "success" since the master has already
> received two ACKs
> (b) Transaction commit waits for the "last" ACK since only one of
> currently connected standbys has sent the ACK
>
I'd opt for option (b) if that doesn't make the code very complex, or
expensive (to check connected state when reaching quorum).
regards,
Yeb Havinga
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yeb Havinga | 2010-07-26 09:36:19 | Re: Synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-07-26 08:58:34 | quorum commit Re: Synchronous replication |