Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
>> With web applications, at least, you often don't care that the
>> data read is absolutely up-to-date, as long as the point in time
>> doesn't jump around from one request to the next. When we have
>> used load balancing between multiple database servers (which has
>> actually become unnecessary for us lately because PostgreSQL has
>> gotten so darned fast!), we have established affinity between a
>> session and one of the database servers, so that if they became
>> slightly out of sync, data would not pop in and out of existence
>> arbitrarily. I think a reasonable person could combine this
>> technique with a "3 of 10" synchronous replication quorum to get
>> both safe persistence of data and reasonable performance.
>>
>> I can also envision use cases where this would not be desirable.
>
> Well, keep in mind all updates have to be done on the single
> master. That works pretty well for fine-grained replication, but
> I don't think it's very good for full-cluster replication.
I'm completely failing to understand your point here. Could you
restate another way?
-Kevin