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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: 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 21:30:04 +0000
Message-ID: <1300483804.18619.19321.camel@ebony> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D838723020000250003BAFB@gw.wicourts.gov>
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>
	<4D838723020000250003BAFB@gw.wicourts.gov>

On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 16:24 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> 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?

I think the issue is explicit acknowledgement, not visibility.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
 




view thread (85+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <1300483804.18619.19321.camel@ebony>
Permalink:  ../1300483804.18619.19321.camel@ebony/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/1300483804.18619.19321.camel@ebony

 · 

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-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: simon@2ndQuadrant.com, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov, robertmhaas@gmail.com, markus@bluegap.ch, alvherre@commandprompt.com, andrew@dunslane.net, heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com, mdcallag@gmail.com, aidan@highrise.ca
  Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
  In-Reply-To: <1300483804.18619.19321.camel@ebony>

* 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