Re: Configuring synchronous replication

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Configuring synchronous replication
Date: 2010-09-24 13:51:42
Message-ID: 4C9CACEE.7000007@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On 24/09/10 14:47, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 14:12 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> What I'm saying is that in a two standby situation, if
>> you're willing to continue operation as usual in the master even if
>> the standby is down, you're not doing synchronous replication.
>
> Oracle and I disagree with you on that point, but I am more interested
> in behaviour than semantics.
>
> If you have two standbys and one is down, please explain how data loss
> has occurred.

Sorry, that was a typo. As Aidan guessed, I meant "even in a two server
situation", ie. one master and one slave.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2010-09-24 14:01:06 Re: Configuring synchronous replication
Previous Message Aidan Van Dyk 2010-09-24 13:01:54 Re: Configuring synchronous replication

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2010-09-24 14:01:06 Re: Configuring synchronous replication
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-09-24 13:41:14 Re: pg_comments