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: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: 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 16:24:03 -0500
Message-ID: <4D838723020000250003BAFB@gw.wicourts.gov> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinaE8pKZ5RyVShF8ZwDF2+GGQ1bZ_Y-jfO2rLAK@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>
	<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>
	<AANLkTinaE8pKZ5RyVShF8ZwDF2+GGQ1bZ_Y-jfO2rLAK@mail.gmail.com>

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> Since the current solution is intended to support data-loss-free
> failover, but NOT to guarantee a consistent view of the world from
> a SQL level, I doubt it's worth paying any price for this.
 
Well, that brings us back to the question of why we would want to
suppress the view of the data on the master until the replica
acknowledges the commit.  It *is* committed on the master, we're
just holding off on telling the committer about it until we can
honor the guarantee of replication.  If it can be seen on the
replica before the committer get such acknowledgment, why not on the
master?
 
-Kevin



view thread (85+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <4D838723020000250003BAFB@gw.wicourts.gov>
Permalink:  ../4D838723020000250003BAFB@gw.wicourts.gov/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/4D838723020000250003BAFB@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, robertmhaas@gmail.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: <4D838723020000250003BAFB@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