On 01/10/2014 04:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 01/10/2014 04:38 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Adrian,
* Adrian Klaver (adrian.kla...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 01/10/2014 04:25 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Adrian Klaver (adrian.kla...@gmail.com) wrote:
A) Change the existing sync mode to allow the master and standby
fall out of sync should a standby fall over.
I'm not sure that anyone is argueing for this..
Looks like here, unless I am really missing the point:
Elsewhere in the thread, JD agreed that having it as an independent
option was fine.
Yes. I am fine with an independent option.
I missed that. What confused me and seems to be generally confusing is
the overloading of the term sync:
"Proposed behavior:
db01->sync->db02 "
In my mind if that is an independent option it should have different
name. I propose Schrödinger:)
JD
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@gmail.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
