-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > Yeah. One nasty property that async multi master solutions share is > that they change the definition of what 'COMMIT' means -- the database > can't guarantee the transaction is valid because not all the > supporting facts are necessarily known. Even after libpq gives you > the green light that transaction could fail an arbitrary length of > time later, and you can't rely in the assumption it's valid until > you've done some synchronizing with the other 'masters'. Maybe you > don't need to rely on that assumption so a 'fix it later, or possibly > never' methodology works well. Those cases unfortunately fairly rare > in the real world. I don't quite follow you here. Are you talking about *synchronous* multi-master? Async multi-master works just fine, as long as you are not expecting the servers to give the exact same answer at the exact same time. But certainly transactions are "valid". - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201105082243 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAk3HVPgACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgouACfSUJuEy8rg3mosu+WQNU0wpHU mJgAoJmprgcDef4Wb3wowwfuulvR46FI =Sedp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
