On 03/18/2011 05:27 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Basically, what Heikki addresses. It has to be committed after > crash and recovery, and deal with replicas which may or may not have > been notified and may or may not have applied the transaction.
Huh? I'm not quite following here. Committing additional transactions isn't a problem, reverting committed transactions is. And yes, given that we only wait for ACK from a single standby, you'd have to failover to exactly *that* standby to guarantee consistency. > In fact, on further reflection, allowing other transactions to see > work before the committing transaction returns could lead to broken > behavior if that viewing transaction took some action based on the > that, the master crashed, recovery was done using a standby, and > that standby hadn't persisted the transaction. So this behavior is > necessary for good behavior. I fully agree to that. Regards Markus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
