| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |
| Date: | 2010-10-07 12:21:32 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikKOaCJg=NoYmg1GOXic-uzNAQ9YUY2vCptqQHH@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes, lets get k = 1 first.
>
> With k = 1 the number of standbys is not limited, so we can still have
> very robust and highly available architectures. So we mean
> "first-acknowledgement-releases-waiters".
+1. I like the design Greg Smith proposed yesterday (though there are
details to be worked out).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-07 12:24:42 | Re: leaky views, yet again |
| Previous Message | Ivan Voras | 2010-10-07 12:19:08 | Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance |