> you're already well aware that you're building a CP system, and that availability and latency aren't your main concern
Assuming you've chosen correctly between CP and AP approaches, this tells us that availability and latency aren't as important as consistency. But there's nothing that says they aren't arbitrarily close...
Yeah, definitely -- I agree that the decision doesn't mean to just to blindly throw away availability optimizations once you've decided that consistency is important.
Actually, invoking CAP probably didn't add to my message. What I meant to say is that people don't talk about non-majority quorum commits that much because the interesting part is that the serializability comes with majority/overlapping quorums.
As I read it, the comment you were replying to was still restricting its discussion to overlapping quorums, and merely pointing out that that's not actually synonymous with majority.
Assuming you've chosen correctly between CP and AP approaches, this tells us that availability and latency aren't as important as consistency. But there's nothing that says they aren't arbitrarily close...