Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>, 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: 2011-03-18T21:43:32Z
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 5:24 PM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Since the current solution is intended to support data-loss-free >> failover, but NOT to guarantee a consistent view of the world from >> a SQL level, I doubt it's worth paying any price for this. > > Well, that brings us back to the question of why we would want to > suppress the view of the data on the master until the replica > acknowledges the commit. It *is* committed on the master, we're > just holding off on telling the committer about it until we can > honor the guarantee of replication. If it can be seen on the > replica before the committer get such acknowledgment, why not on the > master? Well, the idea is that we don't want to let people depend on the value until it's guaranteed to be durably committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company