Re: Synchronous replay take III
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Synchronous replay take III |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZJ=62eFNFJFdrtps9kM8CQSVR80KxXj9dLzGXxTme6-A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Synchronous replay take III (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Synchronous replay take III
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:42 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Yes, this is essentially the same thing that you were arguing against > above. Perhaps you are right, and there are no people who would want > synchronous replay, but not synchronous commit. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the terminology here, but if not, I find this theory wildly implausible. *Most* people want read-your-writes behavior. *Few* people want to wait for a dead standby. The only application of the later is when even a tiny risk of transaction loss is unacceptable, but the former has all kinds of clustering-related uses. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: