| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2010-09-18 19:59:34 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTiknaQEr=9LUp5YiLMkPDirKGUr7jLmBi+oY6Tq+@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Waiting might sound attractive. In practice, waiting will make all of
> your connections lock up and it will look to users as if their master
> has stopped working as well. (It has!). I can't imagine why anyone would
> ever want an option to select that; its the opposite of high
> availability. Just sounds like a serious footgun.
Nevertheless, it seems that some people do want exactly that behavior,
no matter how crazy it may seem to you. I'm not exactly sure what
we're in disagreement about, TBH. You've previously said that you
don't think standby registration is necessary, but that you don't
object to it if others want it. So it seems like this might be mostly
academic.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-18 20:10:16 | pgsql: Make sure we wait for protocol-level EOF when ending binary COPY |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-18 18:37:01 | pgsql: Give a suitable HINT when an INSERT's data source is a RowExpr |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-18 20:00:19 | Re: compile/install of git |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-09-18 19:38:45 | Re: Serializable Snapshot Isolation |