On Aug 21, 2006, at 10:30 , Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>>> It is however async replication so you can loose data commited on
>>> the
>>> master but not yet replicated to the slaves in case you loose the
>>> master
>>> completely.
>> Yes, here is an insufficient point of Slony-I, i think.
>> Most systems will not permit the committed data to be lost, so use
>> is limited.
>
> Wanna bet?
>
> It is very, very common to have asynchronous replication. I would
> say the need for synchronous is far more limited (although greater
> desired).
I would imagine that multi-master synchronous replication would be
fairly trivial to implement with 2PC and wal-shipping available, no?
