From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Additional options for Sync Replication |
Date: | 2011-03-28 15:01:47 |
Message-ID: | 4D905C8B020000250003BD75@gw.wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We also need to consider the issue raised elsewhere - that a naive
> implementation of this could allow the commit to become visible on
> the standby before it becomes visible on the master. That would
> be expensive to prevent, because you'd need an additional set of
> master-standby interlocks, but I think at least one person was
> arguing that it was necessary for correctness - my memory of the
> details is fuzzy at the moment.
I remember expressing concern about that; I don't know if anyone
else did. After some discussion, I was persuaded that the use cases
where it would matter are narrow enough that documentation of the
issue should be enough.
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-03-28 15:02:25 | Re: Recursive containment of composite types |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-03-28 14:58:28 | Re: Additional options for Sync Replication |