From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why we lost Uber as a user |
Date: | 2016-07-29 01:07:23 |
Message-ID: | 579AAC4B.6020406@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/28/2016 03:58 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 27 July 2016 at 17:04, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
> <mailto:bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>>wrote:
>
> Well, their big complaint about binary replication is that a bug can
> spread from a master to all slaves, which doesn't happen with statement
> level replication.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure that that makes sense to me. If there's a database bug
> that occurs when you run a statement on the master, it seems there's a
> decent chance that that same bug is going to occur when you run the same
> statement on the slave.
>
> Obviously it depends on the type of bug and how identical the slave is,
> but statement-level replication certainly doesn't preclude such a bug
> from propagating.
That's correct, which is why I ignored that part of their post.
However, we did have issues for a couple of years where replication
accuracy was poorly tested, and did have several bugs associated with
that. It's not surprising that a few major users got hit hard by those
bugs and decided to switch.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-07-29 01:12:22 | Duplicate prototype for socket_set_nonblocking. |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-07-29 00:10:36 | Re: pg_upgrade: exit_hook_registered variable |