| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why we lost Uber as a user |
| Date: | 2016-07-27 16:04:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20160727160408.GA23585@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 08:33:52AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > Or in short, this seems like an annoyance, not a time-for-a-new-database
> > kind of problem.
>
> Well, the real annoyance as I understand it is the raw volume of bytes
> of WAL traffic a single update of a field can cause. They switched to
> statement level replication(!).
Well, their big complaint about binary replication is that a bug can
spread from a master to all slaves, which doesn't happen with statement
level replication. If that type of corruption is your primary worry,
and you can ignore the worries about statement level replication, then
it makes sense. Of course, the big tragedy is that statement level
replication has known unfixable(?) failures, while binary replication
failures are caused by developer-introduced bugs.
In some ways, people worry about the bugs they have seen, not the bugs
they haven't seen.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robbie Harwood | 2016-07-27 17:12:27 | Re: [PATCH v12] GSSAPI encryption support |
| Previous Message | Peter van Hardenberg | 2016-07-27 15:11:23 | Re: PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE |