Re: Standalone synchronous master

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: 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 09:48:57
Message-ID: 20140108094857.GM14280@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-01-08 11:07:48 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I'm going to say right off the bat that I think the whole notion to
> automatically disable synchronous replication when the standby goes down is
> completely bonkers. If you don't need the strong guarantee that your
> transaction is safe in at least two servers before it's acknowledged to the
> client, there's no point enabling synchronous replication in the first
> place.

I think that's likely caused by the misconception that synchronous
replication is synchronous in apply, not just remote write/fsync. I have
now seen several sites that assumed that and just set up sync rep to
maintain that goal to then query standbys instead of the primary after
the commit finished.
If that assumption were true, supporting a timeout that way would
possibly be helpful, but it is not atm...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dean Rasheed 2014-01-08 10:19:57 Re: WIP patch (v2) for updatable security barrier views
Previous Message Christoph Berg 2014-01-08 09:40:17 Re: extra_float_digits and casting from real to numeric