Re: Why PostgreSQL doesn't implement a semi sync replication?

From: Francisco Olarte <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com>
To: 余森彬 <justdoit920823(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why PostgreSQL doesn't implement a semi sync replication?
Date: 2016-11-11 15:03:06
Message-ID: CA+bJJbxDjajKfAinvjB=ujxR0HJKber1nHdPxLCsF=-6oo-SMA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 4:40 AM, 余森彬 <justdoit920823(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> As we know, the synchronous commit process is blocked while receives
> from acknowledgement from standby in
> PostgreSQL.This is good for data consistence in master and standby, and
> application can get important data from standby.But
> when the standby crash or network goes wrong, the master could be hang.Is
> there a feature plan for a semi sync like MySQL
> InnoDB(set a timer, and become asynchronous when timeout)?

JMO, but it seems this basically means any process should be dessigned
to cope with the posibility of not having replicated data after
commit, so, why bother with synchronous replication in the first
place?

Francisco Olarte.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-11-11 16:10:23 Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files?
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2016-11-11 14:45:20 Re: Improving RLS planning