On 30.12.2010 22:27, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> synchronous_replication (boolean)
>> Specifies whether transaction commit will wait for WAL records
>> to be replicated before the command returns a "success"
>> indication to the client.
> The word "replicated" here could be taken to mean different things,
> most obviously:
> - slave has received the WAL
> - slave has fsync'd the WAL
> - slave has applied the WAL
Perhaps the level of "replication guarantee" should be decided on the
slave side, by
having a configuration parameter there
report_as_replicated = received|written_to_disk|fsynced|applied
for different types of hosts may have wildly different guarantees and
parameters for these. One could envision a WAL-archive type "standby"
there for data persistence only will and never "apply" WAL.
of couse we could put a bitmap in the status update messages from slave
some quorum on options on master for when the data is "in sync", say
"need 5 received
or (1 applied and 1 fsynced)", but I am pretty sure that trying to get
anywhere with this
before applying the basic sync rep patch would push back sync rep to at
least 9.2 if not 9.5
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2010-12-31 07:50:43|
|Subject: Re: Sync Rep Design|
|Previous:||From: Noah Misch||Date: 2010-12-31 05:47:46|
|Subject: Re: Avoiding rewrite in ALTER TABLE ALTER TYPE|