| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Björnhagen <alex(dot)bjornhagen(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Date: | 2012-01-13 17:50:49 |
| Message-ID: | 26934.1326477049@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't understand why this is controversial. In the current code, if
> you have a master and a single sync standby, and the master disappears
> and you promote the standby, now the new master is running *without a
> standby*.
If you configured it to use sync rep, it won't accept any transactions
until you give it a standby. If you configured it not to, then it's you
that has changed the replication requirements.
> If you are willing to let the new master run without a
> standby, why are you not willing to let the
> the old one do so if it were the standby which failed in the first place?
Doesn't follow.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-01-13 17:52:59 | Re: read transaction and sync rep |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-01-13 17:33:43 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |