On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 11:52 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 09:48 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > What is complicated about having the archive on the standby server? > > > > If the storage on the standby fails, you would lose the archive, right?
As well as the standby itself presumably. Either way you need to restart from a base backup. > I think there's a use case for having two identical servers, and just > setting them up to replicate synchronously. Many of these use-cases > might not even care much about write performance or the duplicity of > maintaining two copies of the archive. Yes, that's what I've said also. > They might care a lot about PITR > though, and that would be impossible if you lose the archive. Agreed, yes we need it as an option. > Do you see a cost to allowing all of the options listed by Fujii Masao? I haven't argued in favour of removing any options, so not sure what you mean. I have asked for an explanation of why certain features are needed so we can judge whether there is a simpler way of providing everything required. It may not exist. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
