From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
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 10:03:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4D74F3AE.9000802@dunslane.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinkzJ=UrLbThZy2KeQg+SjwYqj2r0mDomMwirB7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1PwMns-00047O-UU@gemulon.postgresql.org>
<4D741441.2090704@dunslane.net>
<1299454125.1696.6138.camel@ebony>
<4D74896C.5030402@enterprisedb.com>
<4D74DDFA.70800@dunslane.net>
<4D74E584.7080409@enterprisedb.com>
<4D74E9FA.7070202@dunslane.net>
<AANLkTinkzJ=UrLbThZy2KeQg+SjwYqj2r0mDomMwirB7@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/07/2011 09:29 AM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> My worry is that the stricter definition is what many people will expect,
>> without reading the fine print.
> They they are either already hosed or already using 2PC.
>
>
This is about expectations. The thing that worries me is that the use of
this term might cause some people NOT to use 2PC because they think they
are getting an equivalent guarantee, when in fact they are not. And
that's hardly unreasonable. Here for example is what wikipedia says
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28computer_science%29;:
Synchronous replication - guarantees "zero data loss" by the means
of atomic write operation, i.e. write either completes on both sides
or not at all. Write is not considered complete until
acknowledgement by both local and remote storage.
cheers
andrew
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: andrew@dunslane.net, aidan@highrise.ca, heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com, simon@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
In-Reply-To: <4D74F3AE.9000802@dunslane.net>
* 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