Re: DRAFT 9.6 release
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqRVF2oDvSAvxM=fuxzW0eXqo6qSWG6L3gCssgNK77tG4A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
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. -- Michael
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: