On 2014-01-10 10:59:23 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 01/10/2014 07:47 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >I know there was a desire to remove this TODO item, but I think we have > >brought up enough new issues that we can keep it to see if we can come > >up with a solution. I have added a link to this discussion on the TODO > >item. > > > >I think we will need at least four new GUC variables: > > > >* timeout control for degraded mode > >* command to run during switch to degraded mode > >* command to run during switch from degraded mode > >* read-only variable to report degraded mode > > > > 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).
Would you please explain, as precise as possible, what the advantages of using a synchronous standby would be in such a scenario? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
