Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 01/08/2014 03:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What we lack, and should work on, is a way for sync mode to have M larger
>> than one. AFAICS, right now we'll report commit as soon as there's one
>> up-to-date replica, and some high-reliability cases are going to want
>> more.
> "Sync N times" is really just a guarantee against data loss as long as
> you lose N-1 servers or fewer. And it becomes an even
> lower-availability solution if you don't have at least N+1 replicas.
> For that reason, I'd like to see some realistic actual user demand
> before we take the idea seriously.
Sure. I wasn't volunteering to implement it, just saying that what
we've got now is not designed to guarantee data survival across failure
of more than one server. Changing things around the margins isn't
going to improve such scenarios very much.
It struck me after re-reading your example scenario that the most
likely way to figure out what you had left would be to see if some
additional system (think Nagios monitor, or monitors) had records
of when the various database servers went down. This might be
what you were getting at when you said "logging", but the key point
is it has to be logging done on an external server that could survive
failure of the database server. postmaster.log ain't gonna do it.
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
