| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |
| Date: | 2010-10-06 14:20:47 |
| Message-ID: | 1286374847.2304.101.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 15:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> You're not going to get zero data loss that way.
Ending the wait state does not cause data loss. It puts you at *risk* of
data loss, which is a different thing entirely.
If you want to avoid data loss you use N+k redundancy and get on with
life, rather than sitting around waiting.
Putting in a feature for people that choose k=0 seems wasteful to me,
since they knowingly put themselves at risk in the first place.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-10-06 15:02:29 | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-10-06 14:11:33 | Re: host name support in pg_hba.conf |