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

MARK CALLAGHAN <mdcallag@gmail.com>

From: MARK CALLAGHAN <mdcallag@gmail.com>

To: Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>

Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2011-03-18T13:16:24Z

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 →

Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
- a8a8a3e09652 9.1.0 cited

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> wrote:
> Google invented the term "semi-syncronous" for something that's
> essentially the same that we have, now, I think.  However, I full
> heartedly hate that term (based on the reasoning that there's no
> semi-pregnant, either).

We didn't invent the term, we just implemented something that Heikki
Tuuri briefly described, for example:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=7440

In the Google patch and official MySQL version, the sequence is:
1) commit on master
2) wait for slave to ack
3) return to user

After step 1 another user on the master can observe the commit and the
following is possible:
1) commit on master
2) other user observes that commit on master
3) master blows up and a user observed a commit that never made it to a slave

I do not think this sequence should be possible in a sync replication
system. But it is possible in what has been implemented for MySQL.
Thus it was named semi-sync rather than sync.

-- 
Mark Callaghan
mdcallag@gmail.com