On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 16:24 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Since the current solution is intended to support data-loss-free > > failover, but NOT to guarantee a consistent view of the world from > > a SQL level, I doubt it's worth paying any price for this. > > Well, that brings us back to the question of why we would want to > suppress the view of the data on the master until the replica > acknowledges the commit. It *is* committed on the master, we're > just holding off on telling the committer about it until we can > honor the guarantee of replication. If it can be seen on the > replica before the committer get such acknowledgment, why not on the > master?
I think the issue is explicit acknowledgement, not visibility. -- 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
