| From: | Alastair Turner <bell(at)ctrlf5(dot)co(dot)za> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-05-25 17:08:13 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTilm-stWmjVMHqE4KHu6ttHslVTOe_6-gxqDfUo1@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
.......
>
> The best parameter we can specify is the number of servers that we wish
> to wait for confirmation from. That is a definition that easily manages
> the complexity of having various servers up/down at any one time. It
> also survives misconfiguration more easily, as well as providing a
> workaround if replicating across a bursty network where we can't
> guarantee response times, even of the typical response time is good.
>
This may be an incredibly naive question, but what happens to the
transaction on the master if the number of confirmations is not
received? Is this intended to create a situation where the master
effectively becomes unavailable for write operations when its
synchronous slaves are unavailable?
Alastair "Bell" Turner
^F5
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Fowler | 2010-05-25 17:09:04 | Re: [PATCH] Add XMLEXISTS function from the SQL/XML standard |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-25 16:59:28 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |