| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Date: | 2008-12-13 20:57:21 |
| Message-ID: | 494421B1.7040707@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Tom Lane wrote:
> We won't call it anything, because we never will or can implement that.
> See the theory of relativity: the notion of exactly simultaneous events
> at distinct locations isn't even well-defined
That has never been the point of the discussion. It's rather about the
question if changes from transactions are guaranteed to be visible on
remote nodes immediately after commit acknowledgment. Whether or not
this is guaranteed, in both cases the term "synchronous replication" is
commonly used, which is causing confusion.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2008-12-13 21:20:32 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2008-12-13 20:55:20 | Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1212 |