Jim C. Nasby wrote: ><dons Nomex undies> >Well, I would generally have to agree on not using Slony 1 for HA. I >don't see how it could be considered acceptable to potentially lose >committed transactions when the master fails. Unless maybe my >understanding of Slony is flawed... > > Well, that presumably depends on perspective.
A bank generally cannot ever afford to lose ANY transactions, which would tend to mean that only synchronous replication would be any kind of answer. That kind of application points to really forcibly needing 2PC... Maximizing availability, which is what HA is forcibly and unambiguously about, may not be exactly the same thing as providing guarantees that committed transactions can never be lost. _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
