Simon,
On 10/08/2010 12:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Asking for k > 1 does *not* mean those servers are time synchronised.
Yes, it's technically impossible to create a fully synchronized cluster
(on the basis of shared-nothing nodes we are aiming for, that is). There
always is some kind of "lag" on either side.
Maybe the use case for a no-lag cluster doesn't exist, because it's
technically not feasible.
> In a bad case, those 3 acknowledgements might happen say 5 seconds apart
> on the worst and best of the 3 servers. So the first standby to receive
> the data could have applied the changes ~4.8 seconds prior to the 3rd
> standby. There is still a chance of reading stale data on one standby,
> but reading fresh data on another server. In most cases the time window
> is small, but still exists.
Well, the transaction isn't committed on the master, so one could argue
it shouldn't matter. The guarantee just needs to be one way: as soon as
confirmed committed to the client, all k standbies need to have it
committed, too. (At least for the "apply" replication level).
> So standbys are eventually consistent whether or not the master relies
> on them to provide an acknowledgement. The only place where you can
> guarantee non-stale data is on the master.
That's formulated a bit too strong. With "apply" replication level, you
should be able to rely on the guarantee that a committed transaction is
visible on at least k standbies. Maybe in advance of the commit on the
master, but I wouldn't call that "stale" data.
Given the current proposals, the master is the one that's "lagging" the
most, compared to the k standbies.
> High values of k reduce the possibility of data loss, whereas expected
> cluster availability is reduced as N - k gets smaller.
Exactly. One addendum: a timeout increases availability at the cost of
increased danger of data loss and higher complexity. Don't use it, just
increase (N - k) instead.
Regards
Markus Wanner