On 03/07/2011 02:29 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 07.03.2011 01:28, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 18:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 03/06/2011 05:51 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
I'm glad this is in, but I thought we agreed NOT to call it
"synchronous
replication".
The discussion on the thread was that its not sync rep unless we have
the strictest guarantees. We have the strictest guarantees, so it
qualifies as sync rep.
What do you mean by "strictes guarantees"?
I don't see allow_synchronous_standby setting in the committed patch.
I presume you didn't make allow_synchronous_standby=off the default
behavior. Also, the documentation that describes this as two-safe
replication and claims that "the only possibility that data can be
lost is if both the primary and the standby suffer crashes at the same
time" needs big fat caveats to clarify that this doesn't actually
achieve those guarantees.
Please change the name.
Previously, Simon said:
Truly "synchronous" requires two-phase commit, which this never was.
So I too am confused about how it's now become "truly synchronous". Are
we saying this give the same or better guarantees than a 2PC setup?
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
