>> PostgreSQL's "synchronous" replication is actually not
>> synchronous
>
> Well, that statement is a bit misleading. What is synchronous with
> the COMMIT request is that data is persisted on at least two
> targets before the COMMIT request returns an indication of success.
> It guarantees that much (which some people complain about because
> if there is only one synchronous replication target the commit
> request hangs indefinitely if it, or communications to it, goes
> down) and no more (because some people expect that it is not just
> about durability, but also about visibility). There have been many
> discussions about allowing configuration of broader or less strict
> guarantees, but for now, you have just the one option.
>
>> (it's confusing but the naming was developer's decision).
>
> There was much discussion at the time, and this was the consensus
> for an initial implementation.
I know what PostgreSQL's synchronous replication does. But, as you
saw, still many users expect "synchronous replication" will do
"visibility synchronous". I'm a little bit tired of making this kind
of explanation to users but that's not users fault, I think. Maybe
"crash safe replication" or some such was more appropriate term, but
of course this is just a hindsight.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
