| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep Design |
| Date: | 2011-01-04 18:28:30 |
| Message-ID: | 4D2366CE.1010705@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
All,
This is a pointless argument.
Eventually, we will be implementing all possible sync rep
configurations, because different users *need* different configurations.
Some users care more about durability, some more about availability,
and some more about response time. And you can't have all three, which
was my point about A,D,R (also the point of CAP).
For that matter, any single configuration will be useful to a large
number of users, and an even larger number will be able to "work around"
while they wait for 9.2. Further, the knowledge we gain by having some
kind of synch rep in the field will allow us to implement the different
configurations correctly, which *no* amount of arguing on e-mail will.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
The relevant question is: which configuration(s) can we have ready for
the next CommitFest and alpha release?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-01-04 18:40:25 | Re: Sync Rep Design |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-01-04 18:28:22 | Re: WIP: Range Types |