Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> writes [slightly rearranged]
> My 2c is:
> The current behavior in CAP theorem speak is 'Cap' - i.e focused on
> consistency at the expense of availability. A reasonable thing to want.
> The other behavior being asked for is 'cAp' - i.e focused on
> availability. Also a reasonable configuration to want.
> I think an option to control whether we operate 'Cap' or 'cAp'
> (defaulting to the current 'Cap' I guess) is probably the best solution.
The above is all perfectly reasonable. The argument that's not been made
to my satisfaction is that the proposed patch is a good implementation of
'cAp'-optimized behavior. In particular,
> ... Now the desire to
> use sync rather than async is to achieve as much consistency as
> possible, which is also reasonable.
I don't think that the existing sync mode is designed to do that, and
simply lobotomizing it as proposed doesn't get you there. I think we
need a replication mode that's been designed *from the ground up*
with cAp priorities in mind. There may end up being only a few actual
differences in behavior --- but I fear that some of those differences
will be crucial.
regards, tom lane
