On 26/05/10 20:33, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> Although, if the master crashes at that point, and quickly
>> recovers, you could see the last transactions committed on the
>> master before they're replicated to the standby.
>
> Versus having the transaction committed on one or more slaves but
> not on the master? Unless we have a transaction manager and do
> proper distributed transactions, how do you avoid edge conditions
> like that?
Yeah, I guess you can't. You can guarantee that a commit is always
safely flushed first in the master, or in the standby, but without
two-phase commit you can't guarantee atomicity. It's useful to know
which behavior you get, though, so that you can take it into account in
your failover procedure.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
