Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Unless we have a transaction manager and do proper distributed
>> transactions, how do you avoid edge conditions like that?
>
> Yeah, I guess you can't. You can guarantee that a commit is
> always safely flushed first in the master, or in the standby, but
> without two-phase commit you can't guarantee atomicity. It's
> useful to know which behavior you get, though, so that you can
> take it into account in your failover procedure.
It strikes me that if you always write the commit for the master
first, there's at least a possibility of developing a heuristic for
getting a slave back in sync should the connection break. If you
randomly update zero to N slaves and then have a failure, I don't
see much hope.
-Kevin