On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Agreed. Actually, given the lack of people jumping in and telling us what
> they'd like to do with the feature, maybe it's not that important after all.
>> The basic features that I mean is for most basic use case, that is, one
>> master and one synchronous standby case. In detail,
>
> ISTM the problem is exactly that there is no consensus on what the basic use
> case is. I'm sure there's several things you can accomplish with synchronous
> replication, perhaps you could describe what the important use case for you
> is?
OK, So I'll throw in my ideal use case. I'm starting to play with
Magnus's "streaming -> archive".
*that's* what I want, with synchronous. Yes, again, I'm looking for
"data durability", not "server query-ability", and I'ld like to rely
on the PG user-space side of things instead of praying that replicated
block-devices hold together....
If my master flips out, I'm quite happy to do a normal archive
restore. Except I don't want that last 16MB (or archive timeout) of
transactions lost. The streaming -> archive in it's current state
get's me pretty close, but I'ld love to be able to guarantee that my
recovery from that archive has *every* transaction that the master
committed...
a.
a.
