| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alexander Björnhagen <alex(dot)bjornhagen(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Date: | 2011-12-26 15:05:31 |
| Message-ID: | 87k45jpe4k.fsf@hi-media-techno.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> If you don't care about the absolute guarantee of data, why not just
> use async replication? It's still going to replicate the data over to
> the client as quickly as it can - which in the end is the same level
> of guarantee that you get with this switch set, isn't it?
Isn't that equivalent to setting synchronous_standby_names to '' and
reloading the server?
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-12-26 15:23:32 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Previous Message | Alexander Björnhagen | 2011-12-26 14:59:32 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |