| From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mark Mielke" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | "Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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: | 2008-12-14 03:26:49 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070812131926r23bf7c6x7a8fd7a9b60cfe4b@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Might it not be true that anybody unfamiliar would be confused and that this
> is a bit of a straw man?
[...]
> If my application assumes that it can commit to one server, and then read
> back the commit from another server, and my application breaks as a result,
> it's because I didn't understand the problem. Even if PostgreSQL didn't use
> the word "synchronous replication", I could still be confused. I need to
> understand the problem no matter what words are used.
That is certainly true. But there is value in choosing words which
elucidate the situation as much as possible.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-12-14 03:33:13 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-12-14 03:23:32 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |