| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: is sync rep stalled? |
| Date: | 2010-09-30 14:09:59 |
| Message-ID: | 4CA453E7020000250003618D@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm sure there's several things you can accomplish with
>> synchronous replication, perhaps you could describe what the
>> important use case for you is?
> I'm looking for "data durability", not "server query-ability"
Same here. If we used synchronous replication, the important thing
for us would be to hold up the master for the minimum time required
to ensure remote persistence -- not actual application to the remote
database. We could tolerate some WAL replay time on recovery better
than poor commit performance on the master.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-09-30 14:23:49 | Re: is sync rep stalled? |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-09-30 14:06:56 | Re: is sync rep stalled? |