Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011161337B8B for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 03:52:16 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22773-10 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:52:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.10]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710181337B88 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 03:52:08 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([90.169.156.240]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MNN9N-1PRi0W1QFN-007UFA; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:52:00 +0100 Message-ID: <4D1D8B2F.5070001@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:50:07 +0100 From: Hannu Krosing User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Haas CC: Simon Riggs , Stefan Kaltenbrunner , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Sync Rep Design References: <1293729972.1892.23804.camel@ebony> <4D1CC47E.7050207@kaltenbrunner.cc> <1293735853.1892.24886.camel@ebony> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:E52CbeBCrTxpsbLDGvNoK7DGVVJy7VSOy2oJgW83OKh dJsnPuzLG4esEHOcgjG/k+myJjb/cDaSSEw8/kK93nCnmIUFYX QSPc9UcyykNoNdFgZjYoYSKjXYDYkP6No4Nh0YZnAFv4IF6KsC ZGIG2C/sw/fW5gkreK9M+xiq4mAecUxHWB618AriW+ShOOuQa5 ljq8DdzU2rn/KieyoxIQHA8EUQkoOe7YUq64zNIp0A= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.13 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201012/2533 X-Sequence-Number: 177795 On 30.12.2010 22:27, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> synchronous_replication (boolean) >> Specifies whether transaction commit will wait for WAL records >> to be replicated before the command returns a "success" >> indication to the client. > The word "replicated" here could be taken to mean different things, > most obviously: > > - slave has received the WAL > - slave has fsync'd the WAL > - slave has applied the WAL Perhaps the level of "replication guarantee" should be decided on the slave side, by having a configuration parameter there report_as_replicated = received|written_to_disk|fsynced|applied for different types of hosts may have wildly different guarantees and performance parameters for these. One could envision a WAL-archive type "standby" which is there for data persistence only will and never "apply" WAL. of couse we could put a bitmap in the status update messages from slave and have some quorum on options on master for when the data is "in sync", say "need 5 received or (1 applied and 1 fsynced)", but I am pretty sure that trying to get anywhere with this before applying the basic sync rep patch would push back sync rep to at least 9.2 if not 9.5 --------------------- Hannu Krosing