On 03/02/2011 04:13 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
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
Ok, so let's call it "enhanced safety" or something else that isn't a
term of art.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
