On Apr 19, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> I admit to not having followed the discussion around the new mode for
> synchronous_commit very closely, so my apologies if this has been
> discussed and dismiseed - I blame failing to find it int he archives
> ;)
>
> My understanding from looking at the docs is that
> synchronous_commit=remote_write will always imply a *local* commit as
> well.
>
> Is there any way to set the system up to do a write to the remote,
> ensure it's in memory of the remote (remote_write mode, not full sync
> to disk), but *not* necessarily to the local disk? Meaning we're ok to
> release the transaction when the data is in memory both locally and
> remotely but not wait for I/O?
If we crash, the slave can end up ahead of the master, and then it's hopelessly corrupted...
Maybe we could engineer around this, but it hasn't been done yet.
...Robert
