On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 20:26 -0700, Joshua Tolley wrote: > 2) initiate fsync on the primary first > > - In this case, the slave is always slightly behind. If if your > > primary falls over, you don't give commit messages to the clients, > but > > if it recovers, it might have committed data, and slaves will still > be > > able to catch up. > > > > The thing is that currently, even without replication, #2 can > happen. > > For what little it's worth, I vote for this option, because it's a > problem that can already happen (as opposed to adding an entirely new > type of problem to the mix).
This proposal provides #2, so your wish is met. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
