On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 12:12 PM Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2021, at 19:42, Oleg Serov <oleg@slapdash.com> wrote: > How would you accomplish this otherwise?
Synchronous commit. It sounds like you are attempting to build the same kind of guarantees that synchronous commit provides, only in the application by polling LSNs. It might be best just to use synchronous commit, so that you know that once the transaction is committed, the secondary has it.
That does not seem to be feasible for our application. Using synchronous commit affects performance and really makes replication not really useful... What we want to achieve is to have a consistent DB state across all connections for master and replica per user. If other users see something outdated, is OK.
