Daniel, > Ah, okay, I had missed that discussion, I also did not know it got so > specific as to address this case (are you sure?) rather than something > more general, say quorum or N-safe durability.
The way we address that case is through n-safe durability. > The user may have their own level of durability guarantee they want to > attain (that's why machine "B" is syncrepped in my example), but when > doing the switchover I think an override to enable a smooth handoff > (meaning: everything syncrepped) would be best. What I want to avoid > is an ack from "COMMIT" from the primary (machine "A"), and then, post > switchover, the data isn't there on machine A-Prime (or "B", provided > it was able to follow successfully at all, as in the current case it > might get ahead of A-prime in the WAL). Yeah, when I think about your use case, I can understand why it's an issue. It would be nice to have a superuser setting (or similar) which could override user preferances and make all transactions synchrep temporarily. I'm not sure that's going to be reasonable to do for 9.1 though. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers