On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:

> On 2014-01-10 14:29:58 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > db02 goes down. It doesn't matter why. It is down. db01 continues to
> accept
> > orders, allow people to log into the website and we can still service
> > accounts. The continuity of service continues.
> Why is that configuration advantageous over a async configuration is the
> question.

Because it is orders of magnitude less likely to lose transactions that
were reported to have been committed.  A permanent failure of the master is
almost guaranteed to lose transactions with async.  With auto-degrade, a
permanent failure of the master only loses reported-committed transactions
if it co-occurs with a temporary failure of the replica or the network,
lasting longer than the time out period.

Why, with those requirements, are you using a synchronous
> standby at all?

They aren't using synchronous standby, they are using asynchronous standby
because we fail to provide the choice they prefer, which is a compromise
between the two.



Reply via email to