On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 12:11 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> B. Eventual Inconsistency
> -------------------------
> If we have a quorum commit, it's possible for any individual standby to
> be indefinitely ahead of any standby which is not needed by the quorum.
> This means that:
>
> -- There is no clear criteria for when a standby which is not needed for
> quorum should be considered no longer a synch standby, and
> -- Applications cannot make assumptions that synch rep promises some
> specific window of synchronicity, eliminating a lot of the value of
> quorum commit.
Point B seems particularly dangerous.
When you lose one of the systems and the lagging server becomes required
for quorum, then all of a sudden you could be facing a huge delay to
commit the next transaction (because it needs to catch up on a lot of
WAL replay). This can happen even without a network problem at all, and
seems very likely to result in the lagging system being considered
"down" due to a timeout. Not good, because the reason it is required for
quorum is because another standby just went down.
In other words, a lagging standby combined with a timeout mechanism is
essentially useless, because it will never catch up in time to be a part
of the quorum.
Regards,Jeff Davis