On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > * Quorum commit. Wait until n standbys acknowledge. n=1 and n=all servers > can be seen as important special cases of this.
I think that we should skip quorum commit at the first phase because the design seems to be still poorly-thought-out. I'm concerned about the case where the faster synchronous standby goes down and the lagged synchronous one remains when n=1. In this case, some transactions marked as committed in a client might not be replicated to the remaining synchronous standby yet. What if the master goes down at this point? How can we determine whether promoting the remaining standby to the master causes data loss? 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
