Re: Additional options for Sync Replication

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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