| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous replay take III |
| Date: | 2019-02-01 14:34:49 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZJ=62eFNFJFdrtps9kM8CQSVR80KxXj9dLzGXxTme6-A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:42 PM Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes, this is essentially the same thing that you were arguing against
> above. Perhaps you are right, and there are no people who would want
> synchronous replay, but not synchronous commit.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the terminology here, but if not, I find
this theory wildly implausible. *Most* people want read-your-writes
behavior. *Few* people want to wait for a dead standby. The only
application of the later is when even a tiny risk of transaction loss
is unacceptable, but the former has all kinds of clustering-related
uses.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-02-01 14:40:44 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-02-01 14:30:58 | Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring |