Horton

Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.

Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>

View thread
From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>, "Markus Wanner" <markus@bluegap.ch>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, "MARK CALLAGHAN" <mdcallag@gmail.com>, "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan@highrise.ca>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-03-18T19:34:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 20:19 +0100, Markus Wanner wrote:
 
>> >>> Simon Riggs<simon@2ndQuadrant.com>  wrote:
>> >>>> In PostgreSQL other users cannot observe the commit until an
>> >>>> acknowledgement has been received.
>> 
>> On other nodes as well?  To me that means the standby needs to
>> hold back COMMIT of an ACKed transaction, until receives a re-ACK
>> from the master, that it committed the transaction there.  How
>> else could the slave know when to commit its ACKed transactions?
> 
> We could do that easily enough, actually, if we wished.
> 
> Do we wish?
 
+1
 
If we're going out of our way to suppress it on the master until the
COMMIT returns, it shouldn't be showing on the replicas before that.
 
-Kevin