On 03/07/2011 09:02 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 07.03.2011 15:30, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Previously, Simon said:
>>
>>> Truly "synchronous" requires two-phase commit, which this never was.
>>
>> So I too am confused about how it's now become "truly synchronous". Are
>> we saying this give the same or better guarantees than a 2PC setup?
>
> The guarantee we have now with synchronous_replication=on is that when
> the server acknowledges a commit to the client (ie. when COMMIT
> command returns), the transaction is safely flushed to disk on the
> master and at least one synchronous standby server.
>
> What you don't get is a guarantee on what happens to transactions that
> were not acknowledged to the client. For example, if you pull the
> power plug, the transaction that was just being committed might be
> committed on the master, but not yet on the standby.
>
> For me, that's enough to call it "synchronous replication". It
> provides a useful guarantee to the client. But you could argue for an
> even stricter definition, requiring atomicity so that if a transaction
> is not successfully replicated for any reason, including crash, it is
> rolled back in the master too. That would require 2PC.
>
My worry is that the stricter definition is what many people will
expect, without reading the fine print.
cheers
andrew
