| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, 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 <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Date: | 2014-01-10 21:34:58 |
| Message-ID: | 52D06782.8010006@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/10/14, 12:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I know I am the one that instigated all of this so I want to be very clear on what I and what I am confident that my customers would expect.
>
> If a synchronous slave goes down, the master continues to operate. That is all. I don't care if it is configurable (I would be fine with that). I don't care if it is not automatic (e.g; slave goes down and we have to tell the master to continue).
>
> I have read through this thread more than once, and I have also went back to the docs. I understand why we do it the way we do it. I also understand that from a business requirement for 99% of CMD's customers, it's wrong. At least in the sense of providing continuity of service.
+1
I understand that this is a degredation of full-on sync rep. But there is definite value added with sync-rep that can automatically (or at least easily) degrade over async; it protects you from single failures. I fully understand that it will not protect you from a double failure. That's OK in many cases.
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | lcampbell | 2014-01-10 21:39:03 | BUG #8782: Segmentation Fault during initialization |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2014-01-10 21:34:35 | Re: Time to do our Triage for 9.4 |