Re: Issues with Quorum Commit
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTimNq6fEDa_P+SLOZMeYO2rOkmjGsQzKPAMBpikH@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Issues with Quorum Commit
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:17, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 06.10.2010 11:09, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> >>> No. Synchronous replication does not help with availability. It allows >>> you >>> to achieve zero data loss, ie. if the master dies, you are guaranteed >>> that >>> any transaction that was acknowledged as committed, is still committed. >> >> Hmm.. but we can increase availability without any data loss by using >> synchronous >> replication. Many people have already been using synchronous >> replication softwares >> such as DRBD for that purpose. > > Sure, but it's not the synchronous aspect that increases availability. It's > the replication aspect, and we already have that. Making the replication > synchronous allows zero data loss in case the master suddenly dies, but it > comes at the cost of availability. That's only for a narrow definition of availability. For a lot of people, having access to your data isn't considered availability unless you can trust the data... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: