| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alastair Turner <bell(at)ctrlf5(dot)co(dot)za>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-05-26 00:58:01 |
| Message-ID: | 7CEC997C-A886-4A66-B74C-6C01D01E8876@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 25, 2010, at 22:16 , Simon Riggs wrote:
> All of these issues show why I want to specify the synchronisation mode
> as a USERSET. That will allow us to specify more easily which parts of
> our application are important when the cluster is degraded and which
> data is so critical it must reach multiple servers.
Hm, but since flushing a important COMMIT to the slave(s) will also need to flush all previous (potentially unimportant) COMMITs to the slave(s), isn't there a substantial chance of priority-inversion type problems there?
Then again, if asynchronous_commit proved to be effective than so will this probably, so maybe my fear is unjustified.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-05-26 01:31:25 | Re: Fwd: Hiding data in postgresql |
| Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-05-26 00:52:13 | Re: ExecutorCheckPerms() hook |