On May 25, 2010, at 22:16 , Simon Riggs wrote:
> All of these issues show why I want to specify the synchronisation mode
> as a USERSET. That will allow us to specify more easily which parts of
> our application are important when the cluster is degraded and which
> data is so critical it must reach multiple servers.


Hm, but since flushing a important COMMIT to the slave(s) will also need to 
flush all previous (potentially unimportant) COMMITs to the slave(s), isn't 
there a substantial chance of priority-inversion type problems there?

Then again, if asynchronous_commit proved to be effective than so will this 
probably, so maybe my fear is unjustified.

best regards,
Florian Pflug


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to