Re: Configuring synchronous replication

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>

To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>

Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, jd@commandprompt.com, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2010-09-24T13:51:42Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 24/09/10 14:47, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 14:12 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> What I'm saying is that in a two standby situation, if
>> you're willing to continue operation as usual in the master even if
>> the standby is down, you're not doing synchronous replication.
>
> Oracle and I disagree with you on that point, but I am more interested
> in behaviour than semantics.
>
> If you have two standbys and one is down, please explain how data loss
> has occurred.

Sorry, that was a typo. As Aidan guessed, I meant "even in a two server 
situation", ie. one master and one slave.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com