| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Date: | 2014-01-08 22:52:07 |
| Message-ID: | 52CDD697.7000800@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/08/2014 02:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> db0->db1 in synchronous mode
>>
>> The idea is that we know that data on db0 is not written until we know for a
>> fact that db1 also has that data. That is great and a guarantee of data
>> integrity between the two nodes.
>
> That guarantee is never there. The only thing guaranteed is that the
> client isn't notified of the commit until db1 has received the data.
Well ugh on that.. but that is for another reply.
>
> That's why you should configure a second standby as another (candidate)
> synchronous replica, also listed in synchronous_standby_names.
I don't have a response to this that does not involve a great deal of
sarcasm.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary
act.", George Orwell
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-08 22:54:09 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Previous Message | Erik Rijkers | 2014-01-08 22:51:30 | Re: nested hstore patch (sgml typo) |