Re: Sync Rep Design
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Sync Rep Design |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTi=U6xzMpsrFbZkjQHrSnR_n+M9iGLrx0p8a4n+j@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Sync Rep Design (Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>) |
Ответы |
Re: Sync Rep Design
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: > that is exactly my point - if have no guarantee that your SYNC standby is > actually sync there is no use for it being used in business cases that > require sync replication. > If we cannot support that usecase I would either like to see us restricting > to only one sync capable standby or by putting a big CAVEAT into the docs > saying that sync replication in pg only is a hint and not a guarantee that > might or might not be honored in the case of more than one standby. I think it's clear that different people want to different things. I understand Simon's point, but I think the point Stefan and Jeff are making is equally valid. I think the solution is: - Simon gets to implement his version first because he's writing the code. If someone else writes the code then they get to pick. - Whoever wants to make the other thing work can write a patch for that after. - The docs should not allege that either setup is preferable to the other, because there is not now and will never be consensus that this is in fact true. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: