| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-05-25 16:40:59 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTik-jcfo20-TTOLIg1AR_0ui2MhQqXoPNswv222X@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Synchronous replication implies that a commit should wait. This wait is
> experienced by the transaction, not by other parts of the system. If we
> define robustness at the standby level then robustness depends upon
> unseen administrators, as well as the current up/down state of standbys.
> This is action-at-a-distance in its worst form.
Maybe, but I can't help thinking people are going to want some form of
this. The case where someone wants to do sync rep to the machine in
the next rack over and async rep to a server at a remote site seems
too important to ignore.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-25 16:44:34 | Re: [PATCH] Add XMLEXISTS function from the SQL/XML standard |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-25 16:38:07 | Re: recovery getting interrupted is not so unusual as it used to be |