On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:16 AM, MARK CALLAGHAN <mdcallag@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> wrote:
>> Google invented the term "semi-syncronous" for something that's
>> essentially the same that we have, now, I think. However, I full
>> heartedly hate that term (based on the reasoning that there's no
>> semi-pregnant, either).
>
> We didn't invent the term, we just implemented something that Heikki
> Tuuri briefly described, for example:
> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=7440
>
> In the Google patch and official MySQL version, the sequence is:
> 1) commit on master
> 2) wait for slave to ack
> 3) return to user
>
> After step 1 another user on the master can observe the commit and the
> following is possible:
> 1) commit on master
> 2) other user observes that commit on master
> 3) master blows up and a user observed a commit that never made it to a slave
>
> I do not think this sequence should be possible in a sync replication
> system. But it is possible in what has been implemented for MySQL.
> Thus it was named semi-sync rather than sync.
Thanks for the insight. That can't happen with our implementation, I believe.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
