| From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Mark Mielke" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, "Greg Stark" <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca" <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Date: | 2008-12-15 12:28:10 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070812150428j1f84c953m9949e910b51c77b5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> In fact, waiting for reply from standby server before acknowledging a commit
> to the client is a bit pointless otherwise. It puts you in a strange
> situation, where you're waiting for the commits in normal operation, but if
> there's a network glitch or the standby goes down, you're willing to go
> ahead without it. You get a high guarantee that your data is up-to-date in
> the standby, except when it isn't. Which isn't much of a guarantee.
It protects you against a catastrophic loss of the primary, which is a
non-trivial consideration. At the risk of being ghoulish, imagine
that you are a large financial company headquartered in the world
trade center.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2008-12-15 13:06:23 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-12-15 12:24:21 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |