As we know mysql do replication asynchronously. I heard that I need some extra plugins to do
synchronous replication.
So let us Consider the situation of asynchronous replication: The master writes events to its binary log but does not know whether or when a master2 has retrieved and processed them. With asynchronous replication, if the master1 crashes, transactions that it has committed might not have been transmitted to any master2.
My question is whether these transactions will finally be replicated to master2 later when master1 starts up again? If it is not, then it is a big inconsistency problem.
My question is same for master-slave replication and master is down with same situation.
Do I need some special configuration parameter to make it happen automatically?
Or Do I have to manually dump out the data from master1 and import to master2 etc?
======
Update: I probably mis-used the word "crashes" above, I just want to refer the situation that master1 fails to sync the data to others for some time period. This replies (thanks) below cover two cases: real un-recoverable crash due to disk failure for example, or temporarily offline problem due to network problem etc.
If the master1 comes back online after an interruption, and the binlogs haven't been lost, then the replica can download any binlogs it missed out on. For this discussion, master2 is a replica.
Of course if master1's crash was severe enough to corrupt or lose its binlogs, you're out of luck.
There are also cases where master1 wrote changes to its database but the binlog entry was lost in the crash. To solve this risk you can set sync_binlog=1 so that transactions on master1 require that the respective binlog entry is safe on disk or else the transaction can't complete.
But syncing binlogs to disk on every COMMIT has some overhead, and many sites decide they'd rather have performance than data safety. It's true that some workloads simply have too high a rate of transactions per second to allow this. I.e. there's an physical upper bound to the number of disk syncs per second. The solution would then need to be to get faster disks (or SSD), or spread the workload over multiple servers.
I've also seen a reverse situation: the binlog entry is written to the filesystem cache on the master1, and the replica downloads that binlog entry and the replica applies it, but that entry never makes it to disk on the master1 because of the disk was having intermittent failures. So ironically, the replica had processed changes that were never committed to disk on the master!
You mentioned the possibility of synchronous replication. MySQL doesn't really have this option. The closest they have is Semisynchronous Replication which means that a transaction on master1 isn't allowed to commit until at least one semi-sync replica confirms that it has received the transaction's binlog entry. This means you'll never have a discrepancy like those described above. But this adds some latency to every COMMIT.
Why is it "semi"-synchronous? Because the COMMIT on master1 doesn't have to wait for the transaction to be executed on the replica, it only has to wait for the replica to acknowledge receiving the binlog event. The replica can still lag behind.
Comment from @ceejayoz mentions Percona XtraDB Cluster. This works pretty similarly to semisynchronous replication, in that during COMMIT, the writer node must transmit the log for that transaction to all other nodes in the cluster. So the latency is the speed at which the slowest node acknowledges receiving the event.