[takeda]

This is a common misconception about CAP theorem. Significant number of people don't realize that distributed system also includes clients, it's not just communication between servers.

I suspect he did not go over replication, because Postgres technically still fail over support is DIY, although he should. There are two replication methods though which I would like to see:

- asynchronous - this one is fast, but it most likely would have similar issues the other database have - synchronous - the master makes sure data is replicated before returning to the user this should in theory always consistent

You would typically have two nodes in same location replicating synchronously and use asynchronous replication to different data centers. On a failure, you simply fail over to another synchronously replicating server.

Regarding consul/etcd actually those technologies did not do well in his tests, but authors appear to be motivated to fix issues.

[weddpros]

I agree with your point about the lcient, but there's always a client... What's missing in the postgresql test is high availability, redundancy and partition tolerance... Similarly any inprocess db would beat the competition :)

That's why I said it's unfair to say "postgresql did well".

Call me maybe is supposed to test all the difficult problems of CAP, which have not been tested at all with Postgresql.