On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Since the current solution is intended to support data-loss-free >> failover, but NOT to guarantee a consistent view of the world from >> a SQL level, I doubt it's worth paying any price for this. > > Well, that brings us back to the question of why we would want to > suppress the view of the data on the master until the replica > acknowledges the commit. It *is* committed on the master, we're > just holding off on telling the committer about it until we can > honor the guarantee of replication. If it can be seen on the > replica before the committer get such acknowledgment, why not on the > master?
Well, the idea is that we don't want to let people depend on the value until it's guaranteed to be durably committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
