On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Since the current solution is intended to support data-loss-free
>> failover, but NOT to guarantee a consistent view of the world from
>> a SQL level, I doubt it's worth paying any price for this.
>
> Well, that brings us back to the question of why we would want to
> suppress the view of the data on the master until the replica
> acknowledges the commit. It *is* committed on the master, we're
> just holding off on telling the committer about it until we can
> honor the guarantee of replication. If it can be seen on the
> replica before the committer get such acknowledgment, why not on the
> master?
Well, the idea is that we don't want to let people depend on the value
until it's guaranteed to be durably committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
