From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
Date: | 2011-03-07 14:21:46 |
Message-ID: | 4D74E9FA.7070202@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 03/07/2011 09:02 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 07.03.2011 15:30, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Previously, Simon said:
>>
>>> Truly "synchronous" requires two-phase commit, which this never was.
>>
>> So I too am confused about how it's now become "truly synchronous". Are
>> we saying this give the same or better guarantees than a 2PC setup?
>
> The guarantee we have now with synchronous_replication=on is that when
> the server acknowledges a commit to the client (ie. when COMMIT
> command returns), the transaction is safely flushed to disk on the
> master and at least one synchronous standby server.
>
> What you don't get is a guarantee on what happens to transactions that
> were not acknowledged to the client. For example, if you pull the
> power plug, the transaction that was just being committed might be
> committed on the master, but not yet on the standby.
>
> For me, that's enough to call it "synchronous replication". It
> provides a useful guarantee to the client. But you could argue for an
> even stricter definition, requiring atomicity so that if a transaction
> is not successfully replicated for any reason, including crash, it is
> rolled back in the master too. That would require 2PC.
>
My worry is that the stricter definition is what many people will
expect, without reading the fine print.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2011-03-07 14:29:04 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-03-07 14:02:44 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2011-03-07 14:29:04 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-03-07 14:02:44 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |