Re: DRAFT 9.6 release
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4ca6dc18-769d-e7a6-2d17-53b5c77cd9f2@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | DRAFT 9.6 release (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: DRAFT 9.6 release
Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On 08/30/2016 05:35 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 03:22:18PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> What does that mean exactly? If I do: >>> >>> 3 ( s1, s2, s3, s4, s5 ) >>> >>> And a commit is ack'd by s2, s3, and s5, what happens? >> >> As I understand it, it can continue with those three servers sending a >> confirmation back. > > Assuming that all servers are connected at the moment decision is > made, you need to wait for s1, s2 *and* s3 to acknowledge depending on > synchronous_commit. By default that would be waiting for the LSN to > have been flushed on all of them. And the important point to get is > that what has been committed is dependent on the order of the items > listed. This is not quorum commit, in which case having only > confirmation from 3 servers in the set of 5 servers listed would be > fine. > > If for example s2 and s4 are not connected at the moment of the > decision, you'd need to wait for acknowledgment from s1, s3 and s5 > before moving on. OK, so this says to me that we need a bunch of additional documentation on this feature, because the existing docs read like it's "any 3 out of the list" instead of "the first 3 which are connected". -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own)
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: