From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sergos@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp3.mail.ru (smtp3.mail.ru [94.100.179.58])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7346B4696C3
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Wed,  8 Apr 2020 18:06:08 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 18:06:07 +0300
From: Sergey Ostanevich <sergos@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20200408150607.GD18283@tarantool.org>
References: <20200403210836.GB18283@tarantool.org>
 <b05475aa-754a-911c-94d9-1e87aa9e80be@tarantool.org>
 <20200408091844.GC18283@tarantool.org>
 <20200408140544.GC21031@atlas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200408140544.GC21031@atlas>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [RFC] Quorum-based synchronous replication
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>, Aleksandr Lyapunov <alyapunov@tarantool.org>, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

Hi!

Thanks for review!

On 08 апр 17:05, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Sergey Ostanevich <sergos@tarantool.org> [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? 

Does this RFC depend on in-memory WAL after all?
The formulation of principles in RFC neither rely on nor deny any
optimizations of underlying infrastructure. I believe in-memory can be
introduced indepenetly. Correct me, if I'm wrong.

> There is an unpleasant risk of committing to something that turns
> out to not work out in the best possible way.

It is maxima of current MRG management: instead of perpetually inventing
'best possible' without clear roadmap - and not finish it - identify
what's needed and perform to its timely appearance.

Again, if you see some conflicts between RFC and any technologies being
developed - name them, let's try to resolve them.

Regards,
Sergos