On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Jameison Martin wrote:
> i don't think i've explained things very clearly. the implied contradiction
> is that i'd be using asynchronous replication to catch up a slave after a
> slave failure and thus i'm losing the transactional consistency that i
> suggest i nee
pgsql-general@postgresql.org"
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] synchronous replication: blocking commit on the master
On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:21:24 pm Jameison Martin wrote:
> I have specific needs for wanting synchronous replication instead of
&g
On Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:22:14 am Jameison Martin wrote:
>
> i hope that clears it up.
Yes, but before you roll your own you may want to take a look at whats already
out there:
A survey of what is out there:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Replication,_Clustering,_and_Connection_Poolin
On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:21:24 pm Jameison Martin wrote:
> I have specific needs for wanting synchronous replication instead of
> asynchronous replication, notwithstanding my desire to continue processing
> work on the master if there are no active slaves. I would like to use
> replication
master.
Thanks.
From: Adrian Klaver
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Jameison Martin
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] synchronous replication: blocking commit on the master
On Monday, February 27, 2012 4:36:26 pm Jameison Martin wrote:
> I ha
On Monday, February 27, 2012 4:36:26 pm Jameison Martin wrote:
> I have observed that a commit on a replication master hangs if there are no
> slaves to communicate with if synchronous replication is enabled. I
> believe I have seen a posting that this behavior is deliberate.
>
> In my environment
I have observed that a commit on a replication master hangs if there are no
slaves to communicate with if synchronous replication is enabled. I believe I
have seen a posting that this behavior is deliberate.
In my environment I'd prefer to have the master continue processing
transactions if the
