> Ah, okay, I had missed that discussion, I also did not know it got so
> specific as to address this case (are you sure?) rather than something
> more general, say quorum or N-safe durability.

The way we address that case is through n-safe durability.

> The user may have their own level of durability guarantee they want to
> attain (that's why machine "B" is syncrepped in my example), but when
> doing the switchover I think an override to enable a smooth handoff
> (meaning: everything syncrepped) would be best.  What I want to avoid
> is an ack from "COMMIT" from the primary (machine "A"), and then, post
> switchover, the data isn't there on machine A-Prime (or "B", provided
> it was able to follow successfully at all, as in the current case it
> might get ahead of A-prime in the WAL).

Yeah, when I think about your use case, I can understand why it's an
issue.  It would be nice to have a superuser setting (or similar) which
could override user preferances and make all transactions synchrep
temporarily.  I'm not sure that's going to be reasonable to do for 9.1

                                  -- Josh Berkus
                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.

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

Reply via email to