| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
| Date: | 2011-03-02 19:48:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1299095339.1974.3421.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 16:53 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 02.03.2011 12:40, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > allow_standalone_primary seems to need to be better through than it is
> > now, yet neither of us think its worth having.
> >
> > If the people that want it can think it through a little better then it
> > might make this release, but I propose to remove it from this current
> > patch to allow us to commit with greater certainty and fewer bugs.
>
> If you leave it out, then let's rename the feature to "semi-synchronous
> replication" or such. The point of synchronous replication is
> zero-data-loss, and you don't achieve that with allow_standalone_primary=on.
The reason I have suggested leaving that parameter out is because the
behaviour is not fully specified and Yeb has reported cases that don't
(yet) make sense. If you want to fully specify it then we could yet add
it, assuming we have time.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-02 19:58:34 | Testing extension upgrade scripts |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-02 19:47:21 | Re: knngist - 0.8 |