| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Date: | 2014-01-08 21:40:56 |
| Message-ID: | 17515.1389217256@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm torn on whether we should cave to popular demand on this; but
> if we do, we sure need to be very clear in the documentation about
> what a successful return from a commit request means. Sooner or
> later, Murphy's Law being what it is, if we do this someone will
> lose the primary and blame us because the synchronous replica is
> missing gobs of transactions that were successfully committed.
I'm for not caving. I think people who are asking for this don't
actually understand what they'd be getting.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-01-08 21:44:20 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-08 21:37:59 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |