Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Sync Rep Design

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Sync Rep Design
Date: 2011-01-01 14:15:45
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
<stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> wrote:
> that is exactly my point - if have no guarantee that your SYNC standby is
> actually sync there is no use for it being used in business cases that
> require sync replication.
> If we cannot support that usecase I would either like to see us restricting
> to only one sync capable standby or by putting a big CAVEAT into the docs
> saying that sync replication in pg only is a hint and not a guarantee that
> might or might not be honored in the case of more than one standby.

I think it's clear that different people want to different things.  I
understand Simon's point, but I think the point Stefan and Jeff are
making is equally valid.  I think the solution is:

- Simon gets to implement his version first because he's writing the
code.  If someone else writes the code then they get to pick.

- Whoever wants to make the other thing work can write a patch for that after.

- The docs should not allege that either setup is preferable to the
other, because there is not now and will never be consensus that this
is in fact true.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Guillaume LelargeDate: 2011-01-01 14:53:57
Subject: Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either
Previous:From: Stefan KaltenbrunnerDate: 2011-01-01 14:03:35
Subject: Re: Sync Rep Design

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group