| From: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
| Date: | 2011-03-02 22:10:43 |
| Message-ID: | 4D6EC063.40201@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2011-03-02 21:26, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> I think including "synchronous" is OK as long as it's properly
> qualified. Off-hand thoughts in no particular order:
>
> semi-synchronous
> conditionally synchronous
> synchronous with automatic failover to standalone
It would be good to name the concept equal to how other DBMSses call it,
if they have a similar concept - don't know if Mysql's semisynchronous
replication is the same, but after a quick read it sounds like it does.
regards,
Yeb Havinga
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-03-02 22:18:58 | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-03-02 21:45:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum |