Re: Standalone synchronous master

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, 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 20:46:51
Message-ID: 52CDB93B.5060506@vmware.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 01/08/2014 10:27 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 05:39:23PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 8 January 2014 09:07, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> 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.
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>> We had this discussion across 3 months and we don't want it again.
>> This should not have been added as a TODO item.
>
> I am glad Heikki and Simon agree, but I don't. ;-)
>
> The way that I understand it is that you might want durability, but
> might not want to sacrifice availability. Phrased that way, it makes
> sense, and notifying the administrator seems the appropriate action.

They want to have the cake and eat it too. But they're not actually
getting that. What they actually get is extra latency when things work,
with no gain in durability.

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian Pflug 2014-01-08 20:53:23 Re: How to reproduce serialization failure for a read only transaction.
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2014-01-08 20:42:06 Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers