From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 16:45:28 |
Message-ID: | 1274805928.10830.6.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 12:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Synchronous replication implies that a commit should wait. This wait is
> > experienced by the transaction, not by other parts of the system. If we
> > define robustness at the standby level then robustness depends upon
> > unseen administrators, as well as the current up/down state of standbys.
> > This is action-at-a-distance in its worst form.
>
> Maybe, but I can't help thinking people are going to want some form of
> this. The case where someone wants to do sync rep to the machine in
> the next rack over and async rep to a server at a remote site seems
> too important to ignore.
Uhh yeah, that is pretty much the standard use case. The "next rack" is
only 50% of the equation. The next part is the disaster recovery rack
over 100Mb (or even 10Mb) that is half way across the country. It is
common, very common.
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | MMK | 2010-05-25 16:49:06 | Confused about the buffer pool size |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-25 16:44:34 | Re: [PATCH] Add XMLEXISTS function from the SQL/XML standard |