Re: Synchronous replay take III

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Synchronous replay take III
Date: 2019-02-04 05:46:57
Message-ID: 20190204054657.GS29064@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:34:49AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the terminology here, but if not, I find
> this theory wildly implausible. *Most* people want read-your-writes
> behavior. *Few* people want to wait for a dead standby. The only
> application of the later is when even a tiny risk of transaction loss
> is unacceptable, but the former has all kinds of clustering-related
> uses.

Last patch set fails to apply properly, so moved to next CF waiting on
author for a rebase.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-02-04 05:48:24 Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-02-04 05:43:44 Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current