| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2008-12-13 13:34:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1229175282.8673.145.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 14:07 +0100, Markus Wanner wrote:
> Speaking of a "synchronous commit"
> is utterly misleading, because the commit itself is exactly the thing
> that's *not* synchronous.
Not really sure where you're going here. "synchronous replication" is
used exactly as described in the Wikipedia entry here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_replication
No two word phrase is going to accurately sum up the complexity and
potential for data loss in these situations. DRBD saw that too and just
called them A, B and C and then describe them more accurately.
But I don't think we should say "PostgreSQL just implemented algorithm
B" which is just unhelpful. I don't think its "marketing" to refer to it
by the phrase most commonly used for the technology we are building.
Nobody suggested we call it "wizrep" or suchlike...
The docs can contain the exact description of data loss and timing
windows.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-13 16:05:53 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Previous Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2008-12-13 13:13:50 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |