| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Date: | 2014-01-08 23:51:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1wDnisbrPCZjcSLuvt2=6_8UVfrFFc1rk5hHt27i6esPQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>wrote:
>
> On 01/08/2014 01:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Sync mode is about providing a guarantee that the data exists on more than
>> one server *before* we tell the client it's committed. If you don't need
>> that guarantee, you shouldn't be using sync mode. If you do need it,
>> it's not clear to me why you'd suddenly not need it the moment the going
>> actually gets tough.
>>
>
> As I understand it what is being suggested is that if a subscriber or
> target goes down, then the master will just sit there and wait. When I read
> that, I read that the master will no longer process write transactions. If
> I am wrong in that understanding then cool. If I am not then that is a
> serious problem with a production scenario. There is an expectation that a
> master will continue to function if the target is down, synchronous or not.
>
My expectation is that the master stops writing checks when it finds it can
no longer cash them.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-01-08 23:56:06 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-08 23:27:21 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |