On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:46:51PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 01/08/2014 10:27 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 05:39:23PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > >>On 8 January 2014 09:07, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > >> > >>>I'm going to say right off the bat that I think the whole notion to > >>>automatically disable synchronous replication when the standby goes down is > >>>completely bonkers. > >> > >>Agreed > >> > >>We had this discussion across 3 months and we don't want it again. > >>This should not have been added as a TODO item. > > > >I am glad Heikki and Simon agree, but I don't. ;-) > > > >The way that I understand it is that you might want durability, but > >might not want to sacrifice availability. Phrased that way, it makes > >sense, and notifying the administrator seems the appropriate action. > > They want to have the cake and eat it too. But they're not actually > getting that. What they actually get is extra latency when things > work, with no gain in durability.
They are getting guaranteed durability until they get a notification --- that seems valuable. When they get the notification, they can reevaluate if they want that tradeoff. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
