| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
| Date: | 2011-03-02 15:07:45 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinaz9bkxJek29qtsHoNU2bH0=3M9U9G9nCAnWFV@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 02.03.2011 12:40, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> allow_standalone_primary seems to need to be better through than it is
>> now, yet neither of us think its worth having.
>>
>> If the people that want it can think it through a little better then it
>> might make this release, but I propose to remove it from this current
>> patch to allow us to commit with greater certainty and fewer bugs.
>
> If you leave it out, then let's rename the feature to "semi-synchronous
> replication" or such. The point of synchronous replication is
> zero-data-loss, and you don't achieve that with allow_standalone_primary=on.
I think that'd just be adding confusion. Replication will still be
synchronous; it'll just be more likely to be not happening when you
think it is.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-03-02 15:11:21 | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-02 15:07:03 | Re: Sync Rep v17 |