On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Let's not get *the manner of specifying the policy* confused with *the >> need to update the policy when the master changes*. It doesn't seem >> likely you would want the same value for synchronous_standbys on all >> your machines. In the most common configuration, you'd probably have: >> >> on A: synchronous_standbys=B >> on B: synchronous_standbys=A > > Oh, true. But, what if we have another synchronous standby called C? > We specify the policy as follows?: > > on A: synchronous_standbys=B,C > on B: synchronous_standbys=A,C > on C: synchronous_standbys=A,B > > We would need to change the setting on both A and B when we want to > change the name of the third standby from C to D, for example. No?
Sure. If you give the standbys names, then if people change the names, they'll have to update their configuration. But I can't see that as an argument against doing it. You can remove the possibility that someone will have a hassle if they rename a server by not allowing them to give it a name in the first place, but that doesn't seem like a win from a usability perspective. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
