| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2012-01-15 21:46:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1xtECZb4HhuyQiNwjpo0a=szOuL5JsMBY9VM-JeJ52FZg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
Sure, but isn't that a very common usage? Maybe my perceptions are
out of whack, but I commonly hear about fail-over and rarely hear
about using more than one slave so that you can fail over and still
have a positive number of slaves.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-01-15 22:01:31 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-01-15 21:21:53 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix breakage from earlier plperl fix. |