On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> And in any event, there is ALWAYS a window of >>> time during which the client doesn't know the transaction has >>> committed but other transactions can potentially see its effects. >> >> Yep. The problem here is that synchronous replication is likely to >> make the window very big. > > So what? If the correctness of your application depends on the > *amount of time* this window lasts, it's already broken. It seems > like you're arguing that we should artificially increase lock > contention to guard against possible race conditions in user > applications. That doesn't make any sense to me, so one of us is > confused.
Yep ;) On second thought, the problem here is that the effects of the transaction marked as committed but still waiting for replication can disappear after failover. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
