On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 8 January 2014 21:40, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
>>> I'm torn on whether we should cave to popular demand on this; but
>>> if we do, we sure need to be very clear in the documentation about
>>> what a successful return from a commit request means. Sooner or
>>> later, Murphy's Law being what it is, if we do this someone will
>>> lose the primary and blame us because the synchronous replica is
>>> missing gobs of transactions that were successfully committed.
>>
>> I'm for not caving. I think people who are asking for this don't
>> actually understand what they'd be getting.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> Just to be clear, I made this mistake initially. Now I realise Heikki
> was right and if you think about it long enough, you will too. If you
> still disagree, think hard, read the archives until you do.
+1. I see far more potential in having a N-sync solution from the
usability viewpoint, and consistency with the existing mechanisms in
place. A synchronous apply mode would be nice as well.
--
Michael