Re: Issues with Quorum Commit

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Issues with Quorum Commit
Date: 2010-10-06 19:35:44
Message-ID: 4CACCF90.6050107@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 06.10.2010 20:57, Josh Berkus wrote:
> While it's nice to dismiss case (1) as an edge-case, consider the
> likelyhood of someone running PostgreSQL with fsync=off on cloud
> hosting. In that case, having k = N = 5 does not seem like an
> unreasonable arrangement if you want to ensure durability via
> replication. It's what the CAP databases do.

Seems reasonable, but what is a CAP database?

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Markus Wanner 2010-10-06 19:51:36 Re: Issues with Quorum Commit
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2010-10-06 19:13:41 Re: gist picksplit iteration