Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: >> With web applications, at least, you often don't care that the >> data read is absolutely up-to-date, as long as the point in time >> doesn't jump around from one request to the next. When we have >> used load balancing between multiple database servers (which has >> actually become unnecessary for us lately because PostgreSQL has >> gotten so darned fast!), we have established affinity between a >> session and one of the database servers, so that if they became >> slightly out of sync, data would not pop in and out of existence >> arbitrarily. I think a reasonable person could combine this >> technique with a "3 of 10" synchronous replication quorum to get >> both safe persistence of data and reasonable performance. >> >> I can also envision use cases where this would not be desirable. > > Well, keep in mind all updates have to be done on the single > master. That works pretty well for fine-grained replication, but > I don't think it's very good for full-cluster replication. I'm completely failing to understand your point here. Could you restate another way? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
