From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
Date: | 2008-12-05 10:09:28 |
Message-ID: | 1228471768.20796.602.camel@hp_dx2400_1 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 12:09 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > The only sensible settings are
> > synchronous_commit = on, synchronous_replication = on
> > synchronous_commit = on, synchronous_replication = off
> > synchronous_commit = off, synchronous_replication = off
> >
> > This doesn't make any sense: (does it??)
> > synchronous_commit = off, synchronous_replication = on
>
> If the standby replies before writing the WAL, that strategy can improve
> the performance with moderate reliability, and sounds sensible.
Do you think it likely that your replication time is consistently and
noticeably less than your time-to-disk? If not, you'll wait just as long
but be less robust. I guess its possible.
On a related thought: presumably we force a sync rep if forceSyncCommit
is set?
> IIRC, MySQL Cluster might use that strategy.
Not the most convincing argument I've heard.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-12-05 10:29:48 | Re: Mostly Harmless: Welcoming our C++ friends |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-12-05 09:59:58 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |