On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Well, again, there are three levels:
>> (A) synchronous_commit=off. No waiting!
>> (B) synchronous_commit=local transactions, and synchronous_commit=on
>> transactions when sync rep is not in use. Wait for xlog flush.
>> (C) synchronous_commit=on transactions when sync rep IS in use. Wait
>> for xlog flush and replication.
>> So basically, you can't be more asynchronous than the guy in front of
> (A) still gives a guarantee - transactions that begin after the commit
> returns see
> the commited transaction. A weaker variant would say that if the commit
> returns, and the server doesn't crash in the meantime, the commit would at
> some point become visible. Maybe even that transactions that begin after the
> commit returns become visible after that commit.
Yeah, you could do that. But that's such a weak guarantee that I'm
not sure it has much practical utility.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Noah Misch||Date: 2011-07-29 03:05:15|
|Subject: Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-07-29 00:14:53|
|Subject: Re: cheaper snapshots|