| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Date: | 2008-12-20 23:16:59 |
| Message-ID: | 494D7CEB.9050103@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Mark Mielke wrote:
> Good answers, Markus. Thanks.
You are welcome.
> So it looks like there is value to both ends of the spectrum, and while
> I feel the most value would be in providing a very fast system that
> scales near linear to the number of nodes in the system, even at the
> expense of immediately visible transactions from all servers, I can
> accept that sometimes the expectations are stricter and would appreciate
> seeing an option to let me choose based upon my requirements.
I absolutely agree to that. The original Postgres-R algorithm covers the
eager (or virtually synchronous) part. I'm planning to extend it with a
(fully) synchronous mode and let the user choose per transaction.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2008-12-20 23:26:17 | Re: reloptions and toast tables |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-12-20 23:09:54 | Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items |