On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 16:24 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Since the current solution is intended to support data-loss-free
> > failover, but NOT to guarantee a consistent view of the world from
> > a SQL level, I doubt it's worth paying any price for this.
>
> Well, that brings us back to the question of why we would want to
> suppress the view of the data on the master until the replica
> acknowledges the commit. It *is* committed on the master, we're
> just holding off on telling the committer about it until we can
> honor the guarantee of replication. If it can be seen on the
> replica before the committer get such acknowledgment, why not on the
> master?
I think the issue is explicit acknowledgement, not visibility.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
