On 28 Jul 2016 12:19, "Vitaly Burovoy" <vitaly.buro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/28/16, Geoff Winkless <pgsqlad...@geoff.dj> wrote: > > On 27 July 2016 at 17:04, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > >> Well, their big complaint about binary replication is that a bug can > >> spread from a master to all slaves, which doesn't happen with statement > >> level replication. > > > > > > I'm not sure that that makes sense to me. If there's a database bug that > > occurs when you run a statement on the master, it seems there's a decent > > chance that that same bug is going to occur when you run the same statement > > on the slave. > > > > Obviously it depends on the type of bug and how identical the slave is, but > > statement-level replication certainly doesn't preclude such a bug from > > propagating. > > > > Geoff > > Please, read the article first! The bug is about wrong visibility of > tuples after applying WAL at slaves. > For example, you can see two different records selecting from a table > by a primary key (moreover, their PKs are the same, but other columns > differ).
I read the article. It affected slaves as well as the master. I quote: "because of the way replication works, this issue has the potential to spread into all of the databases in a replication hierarchy" I maintain that this is a nonsense argument. Especially since (as you pointed out and as I missed first time around) the bug actually occurred at different records on different slaves, so he invalidates his own point. Geoff