Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 30.09.2010 17:09, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Aidan Van Dyk<ai...@highrise.ca> wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
I'm sure there's several things you can accomplish with
synchronous replication, perhaps you could describe what the
important use case for you is?
I'm looking for "data durability", not "server query-ability"
Same here. If we used synchronous replication, the important thing
for us would be to hold up the master for the minimum time required
to ensure remote persistence -- not actual application to the remote
database. We could tolerate some WAL replay time on recovery better
than poor commit performance on the master.
You do realize that to be able to guarantee zero data loss, the master
will have to stop committing new transactions if the streaming stops
for any reason, like a network glitch. Maybe that's a tradeoff you
want, but I'm asking because that point isn't clear to many people.
If there's a network glitch, it'd probably affect networked client
connections as well, so it would mean no extra degration of service.
-- Yeb
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
