| From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-09-07 14:47:33 |
| Message-ID: | 4C865085.60500@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Markus Wanner wrote:
> On 09/07/2010 02:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> practice, this means that the master and standby need to compare notes
>> on the ending WAL location and whichever one is further advanced needs
>> to stream the intervening records to the other.
>
> Not necessarily, no. Remember that the client didn't get a commit
> confirmation. So reverting might also be a correct solution (i.e. not
> violating the durability constraint).
In that situation, wouldn't it be possible that a different client
queried the slave and already saw the result of that transaction
which would later be rolled back?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2010-09-07 14:54:14 | Re: knngist - 0.8 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-07 14:47:27 | Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry |