On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 8 January 2014 21:40, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes: >>> I'm torn on whether we should cave to popular demand on this; but >>> if we do, we sure need to be very clear in the documentation about >>> what a successful return from a commit request means. Sooner or >>> later, Murphy's Law being what it is, if we do this someone will >>> lose the primary and blame us because the synchronous replica is >>> missing gobs of transactions that were successfully committed. >> >> I'm for not caving. I think people who are asking for this don't >> actually understand what they'd be getting. > > Agreed. > > > Just to be clear, I made this mistake initially. Now I realise Heikki > was right and if you think about it long enough, you will too. If you > still disagree, think hard, read the archives until you do. +1. I see far more potential in having a N-sync solution from the usability viewpoint, and consistency with the existing mechanisms in place. A synchronous apply mode would be nice as well. -- Michael
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
