From: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
Date: | 2011-03-07 15:04:22 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTin27HX9bK4CV87_qaVUtykPFi0KF9wC5nuO0UvT@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> wrote:
> They they are either already hosed or already using 2PC.
Sorry, to expand on my all too brief comment, even *without*
replication, they are hosed.
Once you issue commit, you have know knowledge if the commit is
durable, (or even posibly seen by somoene else even) until you get the
acknowledgement of the commit.
That's already a posibility with a single machine databse. Adding
replication in it, just increases the perioud that window exists for
(and the possiblity of things making something "Bad" hit that window).
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-03-07 15:13:46 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-03-07 15:03:10 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-03-07 15:13:46 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-03-07 15:03:10 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |