On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 22:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > If it's guaranteed to be visible on the standby after it's committed on > > the master, and you don't have any way to make it actually simultaneous, > > then that implies that it's visible on the slave for some brief period > > of time before it's committed on the master. > > > > That situation is still asymmetric, so why is that a better use of the > > term "synchronous"? > > Because that happens anyway. If I request a commit on a single, > unreplicated server, the server makes the commit visible to new > transactions and then sends me a message informing me that the commit > has completed. Since the message takes some finite time to reach me, > there is a window of time after the commit has completed and before I > know that the commit has been completed. >
Oh, I see the distinction now. Thanks for the detailed reply. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers