> The point here is that synchronous replication, at least to some > people, is going to imply that the user-visible states of the two > copies are consistent. To other people, it is going to imply that > committed transactions will never be lost even in the event of a > catastropic loss of the primary 1 picosecond after the commit is > acknowledged. We need to choose some word that implies that we are > guaranteeing the latter of these two things but not the former. > Otherwise, we will have confused users, and terminological confusion > when and if we ever implement the former as well.
Right. Before watching this thread, I had thought that the log shipping sync replication behaves former (and I had told so to people in Japan who are interested in 8.4 development. Of course this is my fault, though). Now I understand the log shipping sync replication does not behave same as other "sync replications" such as pgpool and PGCluster (there maybe more, but I don't know) -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
