On 01/08/2014 01:34 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I'm torn on whether we should cave to popular demand on this; but
> if we do, we sure need to be very clear in the documentation about
> what a successful return from a commit request means. Sooner or
> later, Murphy's Law being what it is, if we do this someone will
> lose the primary and blame us because the synchronous replica is
> missing gobs of transactions that were successfully committed.
I am trying to follow this thread and perhaps I am just being dense but
it seems to me that:
If you are running synchronous replication, as long as the target
(subscriber) is up, synchronous replication operates as it should. That
is that the origin will wait for a notification from the subscriber that
the write has been successful before continuing.
However, if the subscriber is down, the origin should NEVER wait. That
is just silly behavior and makes synchronous replication pretty much
useless. Machines go down, that is the nature of things. Yes, we should
log and log loudly if the subscriber is down:
ERROR: target xyz is non-communicative: switching to async replication.
We then should store the wal logs up to wal_keep_segments.
When the subscriber comes back up, it will then replicate in async mode
until the two are back in sync and then switch (perhaps by hand) to sync
mode. This of course assumes that we have a valid database on the
subscriber and we have not overrun wal_keep_segments.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats
