On 26/05/10 20:33, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Although, if the master crashes at that point, and quickly
recovers, you could see the last transactions committed on the
master before they're replicated to the standby.
Versus having the transaction committed on one or more slaves but
not on the master? Unless we have a transaction manager and do
proper distributed transactions, how do you avoid edge conditions
like that?
Yeah, I guess you can't. You can guarantee that a commit is always
safely flushed first in the master, or in the standby, but without
two-phase commit you can't guarantee atomicity. It's useful to know
which behavior you get, though, so that you can take it into account in
your failover procedure.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
