| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Date: | 2014-01-08 22:23:34 |
| Message-ID: | 52CDCFE6.40105@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/08/2014 01:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sync mode is about providing a guarantee that the data exists on more than
> one server *before* we tell the client it's committed. If you don't need
> that guarantee, you shouldn't be using sync mode. If you do need it,
> it's not clear to me why you'd suddenly not need it the moment the going
> actually gets tough.
As I understand it what is being suggested is that if a subscriber or
target goes down, then the master will just sit there and wait. When I
read that, I read that the master will no longer process write
transactions. If I am wrong in that understanding then cool. If I am not
then that is a serious problem with a production scenario. There is an
expectation that a master will continue to function if the target is
down, synchronous or not.
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms
a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-08 22:34:56 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-01-08 22:17:23 | Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers |