On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 16:12 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > I still would like to get a statement on why simon thinks that > the design heikki and others have proposed
I've explained in huge detail why I think what I think, nor avoided any technical issue. It appears to me there has been substantial confusion over alternatives, because of a misunderstanding about how synchronisation works. Requiring confirmation that standbys are in sync is *not* the same thing as them actually being in sync. Every single proposal made by anybody here on hackers that supports multiple standby servers suffers from the same issue: when the primary crashes you need to work out which standby server is ahead. > - The docs should not allege that either setup is preferable to the > > other, because there is not now and will never be consensus that this > > is in fact true. I remain hopeful that people will read what I have read and understand it. Having taken the trouble to do that publicly, my conscious is clear that I've done the very best to explain things and make it easy for users to avoid error. If I am prevented from putting sound advice into the docs, I'll not worry too much. > well I should think we need to clearly spell out everything that affects > reliability and if we only support semi-sync for more than 1 standby we > have only that setup :) You can use sync rep with 1 or more standby servers. At the end of the day, I can't stop anyone from saying "What an idiot, he designed something that gave the same durability and availability as Oracle and MySQL do, yet with additional performance management features". -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
