From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:02:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4D74E584.7080409@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D74DDFA.70800@dunslane.net>
References: <E1PwMns-00047O-UU@gemulon.postgresql.org>
<4D741441.2090704@dunslane.net>
<1299454125.1696.6138.camel@ebony>
<4D74896C.5030402@enterprisedb.com>
<4D74DDFA.70800@dunslane.net>
On 07.03.2011 15:30, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Previously, Simon said:
>
>> Truly "synchronous" requires two-phase commit, which this never was.
>
> So I too am confused about how it's now become "truly synchronous". Are
> we saying this give the same or better guarantees than a 2PC setup?
The guarantee we have now with synchronous_replication=on is that when
the server acknowledges a commit to the client (ie. when COMMIT command
returns), the transaction is safely flushed to disk on the master and at
least one synchronous standby server.
What you don't get is a guarantee on what happens to transactions that
were not acknowledged to the client. For example, if you pull the power
plug, the transaction that was just being committed might be committed
on the master, but not yet on the standby.
For me, that's enough to call it "synchronous replication". It provides
a useful guarantee to the client. But you could argue for an even
stricter definition, requiring atomicity so that if a transaction is not
successfully replicated for any reason, including crash, it is rolled
back in the master too. That would require 2PC.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com, andrew@dunslane.net, simon@2ndQuadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
In-Reply-To: <4D74E584.7080409@enterprisedb.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox