| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
| Date: | 2011-03-03 13:19:46 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimyzWRssxebxJ9a3p0-wKyZp72zGXNxQi+ybQ_J@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2011-03-02 21:26, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>> I think including "synchronous" is OK as long as it's properly
>> qualified. Off-hand thoughts in no particular order:
>>
>> semi-synchronous
>> conditionally synchronous
>> synchronous with automatic failover to standalone
>
> It would be good to name the concept equal to how other DBMSses call it, if
> they have a similar concept - don't know if Mysql's semisynchronous
> replication is the same, but after a quick read it sounds like it does.
Here's the link:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/replication-semisync.html
I think this is mostly about how many slaves have to ack the commit.
It's not entirely clear to me what happens if a slave is set up but
not connected at the moment.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-03 13:23:38 | Re: pg_depend dependency and concurrent DDL issues in PG 8.3.x |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2011-03-03 12:49:00 | Re: Perl 5.12 complains about ecpg parser-hacking scripts |