On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 22:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > If it's guaranteed to be visible on the standby after it's committed on
> > the master, and you don't have any way to make it actually simultaneous,
> > then that implies that it's visible on the slave for some brief period
> > of time before it's committed on the master.
> >
> > That situation is still asymmetric, so why is that a better use of the
> > term "synchronous"?
>
> Because that happens anyway. If I request a commit on a single,
> unreplicated server, the server makes the commit visible to new
> transactions and then sends me a message informing me that the commit
> has completed. Since the message takes some finite time to reach me,
> there is a window of time after the commit has completed and before I
> know that the commit has been completed.
>
Oh, I see the distinction now.
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Regards,Jeff Davis
