From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f66.google.com (mail-ed1-f66.google.com [209.85.208.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 870EF4696C3 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:05:49 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-ed1-f66.google.com with SMTP id cw6so8673898edb.9 for ; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 07:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:05:44 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Message-ID: <20200408140544.GC21031@atlas> References: <20200403210836.GB18283@tarantool.org> <20200408091844.GC18283@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200408091844.GC18283@tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [RFC] Quorum-based synchronous replication List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Sergey Ostanevich Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org * Sergey Ostanevich [20/04/08 12:23]: One thing I continue not understanding is why settle on RFC now when in-memory wal is not in yet? There is an unpleasant risk of committing to something that turns out to not work out in the best possible way. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia