On 01/08/2014 11:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com> writes: >> On 01/08/2014 01:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Sync mode is about providing a guarantee that the data exists on more than >>> one server *before* we tell the client it's committed. If you don't need >>> that guarantee, you shouldn't be using sync mode. If you do need it, >>> it's not clear to me why you'd suddenly not need it the moment the going >>> actually gets tough. >> As I understand it what is being suggested is that if a subscriber or >> target goes down, then the master will just sit there and wait. When I >> read that, I read that the master will no longer process write >> transactions. If I am wrong in that understanding then cool. If I am not >> then that is a serious problem with a production scenario. There is an >> expectation that a master will continue to function if the target is >> down, synchronous or not. > Then you don't understand the point of sync mode, and you shouldn't be > using it. The point is *exactly* to refuse to commit transactions unless > we can guarantee the data's been replicated. For single host scenario this would be similar to asking for a mode which turns fsync=off in case of disk failure :)
Cheers -- Hannu Krosing PostgreSQL Consultant Performance, Scalability and High Availability 2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
