2 ms·
MySQL can actually do one better which is semisync. The transactions get replicated synchronously but applying them is async. You can't lose data anymore due to
by Spivak 3y ago
MySQL can actually do one better which is semisync. The transactions get replicated synchronously but applying them is async. You can't lose data anymore due to a primary failure.
- jvdongen 3y agoPostgres has a similar feature, if you chose ‘remote_write’ for the ‘synchronous_commit’ setting. You can also mix and match sync/ascync options within a cluster and even between individual transactions. Recent versions of Postgres have a really flexible replication configuration to cover a whole range of requirements. See e.g. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/warm-standby.html#SYNCHRONOUS-REPLICATION https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/warm-standby.html#SY...