| From: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous replication and read consistency |
| Date: | 2015-07-29 21:58:03 |
| Message-ID: | mpbi9e$s4p$1@ger.gmane.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Kevin Grittner schrieb am 29.07.2015 um 23:10:
> No, it means that if the primary is hit by a meteor and you promote
> the standby, the data will not have been lost. The time between
> the successful return of the commit on the primary and the time at
> which the change becomes visible on the standby is normally quite
> small; you may have trouble running into a case where you notice
> it, but it can happen.
It's actually not that hard to run into. We encountered this when we were running
unit tests against a master/slave setup with pgPool:
Regards
Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melvin Davidson | 2015-07-29 22:21:57 | Re: instr detail |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2015-07-29 21:43:33 | Re: Synchronous replication and read consistency |