On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 12:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Synchronous replication implies that a commit should wait. This wait is > > experienced by the transaction, not by other parts of the system. If we > > define robustness at the standby level then robustness depends upon > > unseen administrators, as well as the current up/down state of standbys. > > This is action-at-a-distance in its worst form. > > Maybe, but I can't help thinking people are going to want some form of > this. > The case where someone wants to do sync rep to the machine in > the next rack over and async rep to a server at a remote site seems > too important to ignore.
The use case of "machine in the next rack over and async rep to a server at a remote site" *is* important, but you give no explanation as to why that implies "per-standby" is the solution to it. If you read the rest of my email, you'll see that I have explained the problems "per-standby" settings would cause. Please don't be so quick to claim it is me ignoring anything. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers