Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 14 November 2004 16:33, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Log Message:
> >> ---
> >> Remove replicaiton FAQ item.
> >>
> >> Modified Files:
> >> --
> >> pgsql/doc:
> >> FAQ (r1.269 -> r1.270)
Should the text include a mention of synchronous vs. asynchronous? Or
does master-master imply synchronous?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 08:01 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday 14 November 2
Jeff Davis wrote:
Should the text include a mention of synchronous vs. asynchronous? Or
does master-master imply synchronous?
It shouldn't. It is possible to have synchronous replication without it
being master<->master.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Regards,
Jeff Davis
On Sun, 2005-04-24 at
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Should the text include a mention of synchronous vs. asynchronous? Or
> > does master-master imply synchronous?
>
> It shouldn't. It is possible to have synchronous replication without it
> being master<->master.
We could mention async vs sync but at
Quoting Bruce Momjian :
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Jeff Davis wrote:
> > > Should the text include a mention of synchronous vs.
> asynchronous? Or
> > > does master-master imply synchronous?
> >
> > It shouldn't. It is possible to have synchronous replication
> without it
> > being ma
Mischa Sandberg wrote:
> Quoting Bruce Momjian :
>
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > Jeff Davis wrote:
> > > > Should the text include a mention of synchronous vs.
> > asynchronous? Or
> > > > does master-master imply synchronous?
> > >
> > > It shouldn't. It is possible to have synchronou
Quoting Bruce Momjian :
> Mischa Sandberg wrote:
> > About all you can say is, it is not possible to implement
> synchronous
> > master-master replication, because of conflict resolution of
> > simultaneous transactions.
>
> You mean asynchronous master-master? There are some implemen
