On 03/02/2011 04:13 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 15:44 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 03/02/2011 03:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Truly "synchronous" requires two-phase commit, which this never was. So
>>> the absence or presence of the poorly specified parameter called
>>> allow_standalone_primary should have no bearing on what we call this
>>> feature.
>>>
>> I haven't been following this very closely, but to me this screams out
>> that we simply must not call it "synchronous".
> As long as we describe it via its characteristics, then I'll be happy:
>
> * significantly reduces the possibility of data loss in a sensibly
> configured cluster
>
> * allow arbitrary N+k resilience that can meet and easily exceed
> "5 nines" data durability
>
> * isn't two phase commit
>
> * isn't a magic bullet that will protect your data even after your
> hardware fails or is disconnected
>
Ok, so let's call it "enhanced safety" or something else that isn't a
term of art.
cheers
andrew
