Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz> writes [slightly rearranged] > My 2c is:
> The current behavior in CAP theorem speak is 'Cap' - i.e focused on > consistency at the expense of availability. A reasonable thing to want. > The other behavior being asked for is 'cAp' - i.e focused on > availability. Also a reasonable configuration to want. > I think an option to control whether we operate 'Cap' or 'cAp' > (defaulting to the current 'Cap' I guess) is probably the best solution. The above is all perfectly reasonable. The argument that's not been made to my satisfaction is that the proposed patch is a good implementation of 'cAp'-optimized behavior. In particular, > ... Now the desire to > use sync rather than async is to achieve as much consistency as > possible, which is also reasonable. I don't think that the existing sync mode is designed to do that, and simply lobotomizing it as proposed doesn't get you there. I think we need a replication mode that's been designed *from the ground up* with cAp priorities in mind. There may end up being only a few actual differences in behavior --- but I fear that some of those differences will be crucial. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers