Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> writes: > I don't understand why this is controversial. In the current code, if > you have a master and a single sync standby, and the master disappears > and you promote the standby, now the new master is running *without a > standby*.
If you configured it to use sync rep, it won't accept any transactions until you give it a standby. If you configured it not to, then it's you that has changed the replication requirements. > If you are willing to let the new master run without a > standby, why are you not willing to let the > the old one do so if it were the standby which failed in the first place? Doesn't follow. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers