| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(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 15:04:11 |
| Message-ID: | 4CAC8FEB.2040300@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06.10.2010 17:20, Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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.
Looking at it that way, asynchronous replication just puts you at risk
of data loss too, it doesn't necessarily mean you get data loss.
The key is whether you are guaranteed to have zero data loss or not. If
you don't wait forever, you're not guaranteed zero data loss. It's just
best effort, like asynchronous replication. The situation you want to
avoid is that the master dies, and you don't know if you have suffered
data loss or not.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-10-06 15:07:51 | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-10-06 15:02:29 | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |