Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code

* Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> [081215 07:32]:
> > 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.

This was exacty my original point - I want the transaction durably on
the slave before the commit is acknowledged (to build as much local
redunancy as I can), but I certatily *don't* want to loose the ability
to use WAL archiving, because I ship my WAL off-site too...

The ability to have an extra local copy is good. But I'm certainly not
going to want to give up my off-site backup/WAL for it...

a.

--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.