pg.ddx.io  pgsql-committers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: MARK CALLAGHAN <mdcallag@gmail.com>
Cc: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:34:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4D836D6A020000250003BAE4@gw.wicourts.gov> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1300476590.18619.18115.camel@ebony>
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>
	<4D74F3AE.9000802@dunslane.net>
	<4D74FDEC.5040406@enterprisedb.com>
	<4D74FF15.1070804@dunslane.net>
	<1299513979-sup-1987@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<4D832571.5030808@bluegap.ch>
	<AANLkTi=B+cWE-pQJQM=zoA9=Zr25W7zPPMFvvBe11O4E@mail.gmail.com>
	<1300457958.18619.13780.camel@ebony>
	<4D832B4D020000250003BA98@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<4D837EA2.2070205@enterprisedb.com>
	<1300465171.18619.15193.camel@ebony>
	<4D83B02A.5090105@bluegap.ch>
	<1300476590.18619.18115.camel@ebony>

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 20:19 +0100, Markus Wanner wrote:
 
>> >>> Simon Riggs<simon@2ndQuadrant.com>  wrote:
>> >>>> In PostgreSQL other users cannot observe the commit until an
>> >>>> acknowledgement has been received.
>> 
>> On other nodes as well?  To me that means the standby needs to
>> hold back COMMIT of an ACKed transaction, until receives a re-ACK
>> from the master, that it committed the transaction there.  How
>> else could the slave know when to commit its ACKed transactions?
> 
> We could do that easily enough, actually, if we wished.
> 
> Do we wish?
 
+1
 
If we're going out of our way to suppress it on the master until the
COMMIT returns, it shouldn't be showing on the replicas before that.
 
-Kevin



view thread (85+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <4D836D6A020000250003BAE4@gw.wicourts.gov>
Permalink:  ../4D836D6A020000250003BAE4@gw.wicourts.gov/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/4D836D6A020000250003BAE4@gw.wicourts.gov

 · 

reply
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: Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov, simon@2ndQuadrant.com, markus@bluegap.ch, alvherre@commandprompt.com, andrew@dunslane.net, heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com, mdcallag@gmail.com, aidan@highrise.ca, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
  In-Reply-To: <4D836D6A020000250003BAE4@gw.wicourts.gov>

* 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