Re: Standalone synchronous master
| От | Jeff Janes |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMkU=1xAtZPYRjwr4qtw7bCVDmghXvOhUfgGgKtPrxHBFcVabQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Standalone synchronous master (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2014-01-10 14:29:58 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:Why is that configuration advantageous over a async configuration is the
> db02 goes down. It doesn't matter why. It is down. db01 continues to accept
> orders, allow people to log into the website and we can still service
> accounts. The continuity of service continues.
question.
Because it is orders of magnitude less likely to lose transactions that were reported to have been committed. A permanent failure of the master is almost guaranteed to lose transactions with async. With auto-degrade, a permanent failure of the master only loses reported-committed transactions if it co-occurs with a temporary failure of the replica or the network, lasting longer than the time out period.
Why, with those requirements, are you using a synchronous
standby at all?
They aren't using synchronous standby, they are using asynchronous standby because we fail to provide the choice they prefer, which is a compromise between the two.
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: