On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> For me, that's enough to call it "synchronous replication". It provides a
>> useful guarantee to the client. But you could argue for an even stricter
>> definition, requiring atomicity so that if a transaction is not successfully
>> replicated for any reason, including crash, it is rolled back in the master
>> too. That would require 2PC.
>>
>
> My worry is that the stricter definition is what many people will expect,
> without reading the fine print.
They they are either already hosed or already using 2PC.
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
