Horton

Re: Standalone synchronous master

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rastogi@huawei.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-01-08T21:40:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
> I'm torn on whether we should cave to popular demand on this; but
> if we do, we sure need to be very clear in the documentation about
> what a successful return from a commit request means. Sooner or
> later, Murphy's Law being what it is, if we do this someone will
> lose the primary and blame us because the synchronous replica is
> missing gobs of transactions that were successfully committed.

I'm for not caving.  I think people who are asking for this don't
actually understand what they'd be getting.

			regards, tom lane