On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
Sure, but isn't that a very common usage? Maybe my perceptions are out of whack, but I commonly hear about fail-over and rarely hear about using more than one slave so that you can fail over and still have a positive number of slaves. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
