[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: syncrepl questions

Howard Chu writes:
>>> Though the basic "update everyone" concept is simple enough, we'd
>>> still need LDAP transactions to make it clean, which would allow for
>>> consistent multimastering.
>> Well, we'll probably write it so that one daemon on one host
>> will do all
>> the updates.  So that daemon will handle consistency issues.
> That's what Kurt's reply alluded to - without two-phase commit your
> clients will get an inconsistent view. In the time it takes for your
> daemon to send an update to each slave, some client queries will be
> directed to slaves with fresh data, others will go to slaves with
> stale data.

Sounds nice to avoid, but it wouldn't be a problem for us anyway.
We only need to ensure that we don't get old data after the modify
and the sync operations have returned (successfully).