| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, 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 03:33:13 |
| Message-ID: | 1229225593.25502.63.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 22:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > If it's guaranteed to be visible on the standby after it's committed on
> > the master, and you don't have any way to make it actually simultaneous,
> > then that implies that it's visible on the slave for some brief period
> > of time before it's committed on the master.
> >
> > That situation is still asymmetric, so why is that a better use of the
> > term "synchronous"?
>
> Because that happens anyway. If I request a commit on a single,
> unreplicated server, the server makes the commit visible to new
> transactions and then sends me a message informing me that the commit
> has completed. Since the message takes some finite time to reach me,
> there is a window of time after the commit has completed and before I
> know that the commit has been completed.
>
Oh, I see the distinction now.
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2008-12-14 03:34:37 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-12-14 03:26:49 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |