| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| 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 21:16:07 |
| Message-ID: | 24246.1299100567@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 22:10 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Fair enough. All I'm saying is that if we end up shipping without that
>> parameter (implying allow_standalone_primary=on), we need to call the
>> feature something else. The GUCs and code can probably stay as it is,
>> but we shouldn't use the term "synchronous replication" in the
>> documentation, and release notes and such.
> allow_standalone_primary=off means "wait forever". It does nothing to
> reduce data loss since you can't replicate to a server that isn't there.
This is irrelevant to the point. The point is that sync rep implies
that we will not *tell a client* its data is committed unless the commit
is down to disk in two places. I agree with the people saying that not
having this parameter makes it not real sync rep.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-03-02 21:18:50 | Re: Testing extension upgrade scripts |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-03-02 21:15:30 | Quick Extensions Question |