On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 12:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Synchronous replication implies that a commit should wait. This wait is
> > experienced by the transaction, not by other parts of the system. If we
> > define robustness at the standby level then robustness depends upon
> > unseen administrators, as well as the current up/down state of standbys.
> > This is action-at-a-distance in its worst form.
>
> Maybe, but I can't help thinking people are going to want some form of
> this. The case where someone wants to do sync rep to the machine in
> the next rack over and async rep to a server at a remote site seems
> too important to ignore.
Uhh yeah, that is pretty much the standard use case. The "next rack" is
only 50% of the equation. The next part is the disaster recovery rack
over 100Mb (or even 10Mb) that is half way across the country. It is
common, very common.
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering