On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:17, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 06.10.2010 11:09, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> >>> No. Synchronous replication does not help with availability. It allows >>> you >>> to achieve zero data loss, ie. if the master dies, you are guaranteed >>> that >>> any transaction that was acknowledged as committed, is still committed. >> >> Hmm.. but we can increase availability without any data loss by using >> synchronous >> replication. Many people have already been using synchronous >> replication softwares >> such as DRBD for that purpose. > > Sure, but it's not the synchronous aspect that increases availability. It's > the replication aspect, and we already have that. Making the replication > synchronous allows zero data loss in case the master suddenly dies, but it > comes at the cost of availability.
That's only for a narrow definition of availability. For a lot of people, having access to your data isn't considered availability unless you can trust the data... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
