> The point here is that synchronous replication, at least to some
> people, is going to imply that the user-visible states of the two
> copies are consistent. To other people, it is going to imply that
> committed transactions will never be lost even in the event of a
> catastropic loss of the primary 1 picosecond after the commit is
> acknowledged. We need to choose some word that implies that we are
> guaranteeing the latter of these two things but not the former.
> Otherwise, we will have confused users, and terminological confusion
> when and if we ever implement the former as well.
Right. Before watching this thread, I had thought that the log
shipping sync replication behaves former (and I had told so to people
in Japan who are interested in 8.4 development. Of course this is my
fault, though).
Now I understand the log shipping sync replication does not behave
same as other "sync replications" such as pgpool and PGCluster (there
maybe more, but I don't know)
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan