From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: MARK CALLAGHAN <mdcallag@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: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:30:56 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTimATgm3Dt-vOPL9CyqvfJ4knkgmJ_srB7iyfaiz@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=B+cWE-pQJQM=zoA9=Zr25W7zPPMFvvBe11O4E@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>
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:16 AM, MARK CALLAGHAN <mdcallag@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> wrote:
>> Google invented the term "semi-syncronous" for something that's
>> essentially the same that we have, now, I think. However, I full
>> heartedly hate that term (based on the reasoning that there's no
>> semi-pregnant, either).
>
> We didn't invent the term, we just implemented something that Heikki
> Tuuri briefly described, for example:
> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=7440
>
> In the Google patch and official MySQL version, the sequence is:
> 1) commit on master
> 2) wait for slave to ack
> 3) return to user
>
> After step 1 another user on the master can observe the commit and the
> following is possible:
> 1) commit on master
> 2) other user observes that commit on master
> 3) master blows up and a user observed a commit that never made it to a slave
>
> I do not think this sequence should be possible in a sync replication
> system. But it is possible in what has been implemented for MySQL.
> Thus it was named semi-sync rather than sync.
Thanks for the insight. That can't happen with our implementation, I believe.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
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: robertmhaas@gmail.com, mdcallag@gmail.com, markus@bluegap.ch, alvherre@commandprompt.com, andrew@dunslane.net, heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com, aidan@highrise.ca, simon@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimATgm3Dt-vOPL9CyqvfJ4knkgmJ_srB7iyfaiz@mail.gmail.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