On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> For me, that's enough to call it "synchronous replication". It provides a >> useful guarantee to the client. But you could argue for an even stricter >> definition, requiring atomicity so that if a transaction is not successfully >> replicated for any reason, including crash, it is rolled back in the master >> too. That would require 2PC. >> > > My worry is that the stricter definition is what many people will expect, > without reading the fine print. They they are either already hosed or already using 2PC. a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
