From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Sync Rep Design |
Date: | 2010-12-30 20:11:40 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikcji+2VuE95y0rgwD3bTjK5wSLAJuPwRUFfE81@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Most of your doc uses the terms "primary" and "standby", but a few
instances of "master" and "slave" have slipped in. I think it's better
to stick to consistent terminology.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 21:04, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> With synchronous replication options specified at the application level
> (on the master) we can offer sync rep for the most important changes,
> without slowing down the bulk of the total workload. Application level
> options are an important and practical tool for allowing the benefits of
> synchronous replication for high performance applications. This feature
> is unique to PostgreSQL.
I think a comment about the "head-of-line blocking" nature of
streaming repliaction is in order. If you execute massive writes in
async mode and then run a transaction in sync mode, its commit will be
delayed until all the async transactions before it have been applied
on the slave.
> synchronous_replication_timeout (boolean)
Doesn't look like a boolean to me :)
Regards,
Marti
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-12-30 20:23:18 | Re: estimating # of distinct values |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2010-12-30 20:07:16 | Re: Sync Rep Design |