Hi,
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> That's not exactly this, I want to preserve any of the database servers from
> erroring whenever a network failure happens. Sync is not an answer here.
So, you want your base data to remain readable on the slaves, even if it
looses connection to the master, right?
However, this is not dependent on any timing property of replication of
writing transaction (i.e. sync vs async). Instead, it's very well
possible for any kind of replication solution, to continue allowing
read-only access to nodes which lost connection to the primary or to the
majority of the cluster. Such a node will fall behind with its snapshot
of the data, if the primary continues writing.
> That's exactly it: I'm not using replication as a way for a slave to takeover
> the master in case of failure, but to spread data availability where I need
> it, and without requiring a central server to be accessible (SPOF).
I understand. So this is increasing "read-only availability", sort of,
which is what's possible with today's tools. I'm still claiming that you
rather want to increase overall availability, once that's possible. But
arguing about inexistent solutions is pretty pointless.
> But as you mention it, we
> don't yet have a multi-master production setup.
>
> I still hope it'll get on the radar sooner than later, though ;)
Well, it's certainly on *my* radar ;-)
Regards
Markus Wanner