On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 15:44 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 03/02/2011 03:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > Truly "synchronous" requires two-phase commit, which this never was. So > > the absence or presence of the poorly specified parameter called > > allow_standalone_primary should have no bearing on what we call this > > feature. > > > > I haven't been following this very closely, but to me this screams out > that we simply must not call it "synchronous".
As long as we describe it via its characteristics, then I'll be happy: * significantly reduces the possibility of data loss in a sensibly configured cluster * allow arbitrary N+k resilience that can meet and easily exceed "5 nines" data durability * isn't two phase commit * isn't a magic bullet that will protect your data even after your hardware fails or is disconnected -- 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
