On 01/09/2014 02:01 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 1/8/14, 6:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus<josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>>> >On 01/08/2014 03:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> >>What we lack, and should work on, is a way for sync mode to have
>>>> M larger
>>>> >>than one. AFAICS, right now we'll report commit as soon as
>>>> there's one
>>>> >>up-to-date replica, and some high-reliability cases are going to
>>>> want
>>>> >>more.
>>> >"Sync N times" is really just a guarantee against data loss as long as
>>> >you lose N-1 servers or fewer. And it becomes an even
>>> >lower-availability solution if you don't have at least N+1 replicas.
>>> >For that reason, I'd like to see some realistic actual user demand
>>> >before we take the idea seriously.
>> Sure. I wasn't volunteering to implement it, just saying that what
>> we've got now is not designed to guarantee data survival across failure
>> of more than one server. Changing things around the margins isn't
>> going to improve such scenarios very much.
>>
>> It struck me after re-reading your example scenario that the most
>> likely way to figure out what you had left would be to see if some
>> additional system (think Nagios monitor, or monitors) had records
>> of when the various database servers went down. This might be
>> what you were getting at when you said "logging", but the key point
>> is it has to be logging done on an external server that could survive
>> failure of the database server. postmaster.log ain't gonna do it.
>
> Yeah, and I think that the logging command that was suggested allows
> for that *if configured correctly*.
*But* for relying on this, we would also need to make logging
*synchronous*,
which would probably not go down well with many people, as it makes things
even more fragile from availability viewpoint (and slower as well).
Cheers
--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ
