X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D8453E6D; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:15:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14787-05; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:15:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net (outbound01.telus.net [199.185.220.220]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B30053F9B; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:15:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost ([199.185.220.240]) by priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.04 201-2131-118-104-20050224) with ESMTP id <20050424231506.CAWT6414.priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net@localhost>; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:15:06 -0600 Received: from 64.180.225.200 ( [64.180.225.200]) as user a3a18850@192.168.200.1 by webmail.telus.net with HTTP; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:15:06 -0700 Message-ID: <1114384506.426c287a87058@webmail.telus.net> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:15:06 -0700 From: Mischa Sandberg To: Bruce Momjian Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" , Jeff Davis , "Marc G. Fournier" , Robert Treat , PostgreSQL-documentation Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove replicaiton FAQ item. References: <200504242254.j3OMsTo03707@candle.pha.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <200504242254.j3OMsTo03707@candle.pha.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1-cvs X-Originating-IP: 64.180.225.200 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.082 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200504/24 X-Sequence-Number: 2954 Quoting Bruce Momjian : > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Jeff Davis wrote: > > > Should the text include a mention of synchronous vs. > asynchronous? Or > > > does master-master imply synchronous? > > > > It shouldn't. It is possible to have synchronous replication > without it > > being master<->master. > > We could mention async vs sync but at the FAQ stage I think the > multi-master/master-slave disinction is enough. Let's see what > questions > we get. About all you can say is, it is not possible to implement synchronous master-master replication, because of conflict resolution of simultaneous transactions. -- "Dreams come true, not free." -- S.Sondheim, ITW