| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
| Date: | 2011-03-02 21:13:13 |
| Message-ID: | 1299100393.1974.3898.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 15:44 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 03/02/2011 03:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Truly "synchronous" requires two-phase commit, which this never was. So
> > the absence or presence of the poorly specified parameter called
> > allow_standalone_primary should have no bearing on what we call this
> > feature.
> >
>
> I haven't been following this very closely, but to me this screams out
> that we simply must not call it "synchronous".
As long as we describe it via its characteristics, then I'll be happy:
* significantly reduces the possibility of data loss in a sensibly
configured cluster
* allow arbitrary N+k resilience that can meet and easily exceed
"5 nines" data durability
* isn't two phase commit
* isn't a magic bullet that will protect your data even after your
hardware fails or is disconnected
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-03-02 21:15:30 | Quick Extensions Question |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-03-02 21:11:33 | Re: Sync Rep v17 |