Re: Synchronization levels in SR

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Synchronization levels in SR
Date: 2010-09-08 14:22:46
Message-ID: 1283955766.7516.1838.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 09:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:

> So that means we have to make sure that none of the effects of a
> transaction can be seen until WAL is fsync'd on the master AND the
> slave has acked.

Yes, that's right. And I like your example; one for the docs.

There is a slight complexity there: An application might connect to the
standby and see the changes made by the transaction, even though the
master has not yet been notified, but will be in a moment. I don't see
that as an issue though, but worth mentioning cos its just the
"Byzantine Generals" problem.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Kreen 2010-09-08 14:23:45 Re: UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-09-08 14:21:08 Re: git: uh-oh