| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Björnhagen <alex(dot)bjornhagen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 17:33:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1ySUFQG2ZEQx+=aFtjayuafDeb34sLr2Ck6Z08YEpUs2A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Alexander Björnhagen
<alex(dot)bjornhagen(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> At this point I feel that this new functionality might be a bit
> overkill for postgres, maybe it's better to stay lean and mean rather
> than add a controversial feature like this.
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 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?
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-13 17:50:49 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-13 17:32:28 | Re: Remembering bug #6123 |