Sawada Masahiko wrote: > > I think that the #2 problem which is Josh pointed out seems to be solved; > 1. I need to ensure that data is replicated to X places. > 2. I need to *know* which places data was synchronously replicated > to when the master goes down. > And we can address #1 problem using quorum commit. > > Thought?
I agree. The knowledge of which servers where in sync(#2) would not actually help us determine the new master and quorum solves #1. ----- Beena Emerson -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/Support-for-N-synchronous-standby-servers-take-2-tp5849384p5856459.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
