On 1/10/14, 12:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I know I am the one that instigated all of this so I want to be very clear on 
what I and what I am confident that my customers would expect.

If a synchronous slave goes down, the master continues to operate. That is all. 
I don't care if it is configurable (I would be fine with that). I don't care if 
it is not automatic (e.g; slave goes down and we have to tell the master to 
continue).

I have read through this thread more than once, and I have also went back to 
the docs. I understand why we do it the way we do it. I also understand that 
from a business requirement for 99% of CMD's customers, it's wrong. At least in 
the sense of providing continuity of service.

+1

I understand that this is a degredation of full-on sync rep. But there is 
definite value added with sync-rep that can automatically (or at least easily) 
degrade over async; it protects you from single failures. I fully understand 
that it will not protect you from a double failure. That's OK in many cases.
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect                       j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to