| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-05-27 11:28:21 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTilYbYqWnFg_GzfzQrSKcefY1hR8NpfKP3LgWGIj@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> (1) most standard case: 1 master + 1 "sync" standby (near)
> When the master goes down, something like a clusterware detects that
> failure, and brings the standby online. Since we can ensure that the
> standby has all the committed transactions, failover doesn't cause
> any data loss.
How do you propose to guarantee that? ISTM that you have to either
commit locally first, or send the commit to the remote first. Either
way, the two events won't occur exactly simultaneously.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-05-27 11:28:52 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-05-27 11:13:27 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |