Re: Standalone synchronous master
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>,
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>,
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>,
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>,
Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rastogi@huawei.com>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-01-08T23:24:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 01/08/2014 03:18 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Do you really feel that a WARNING and increasing the docs to point > out that three systems are necessary, particularly under the 'high > availability' documentation and options, is a bad idea? I fail to see > how that does anything but clarify the use-case for our users. I think the warning is dumb, and that the suggested documentation change is insufficient. If we're going to clarify things, then we need to have a full-on several-page doc showing several examples of different sync rep configurations and explaining their tradeoffs (including the different sync modes and per-transaction sync). Anything short of that is just going to muddy the waters further. Mind you, someone needs to take a machete to the HA section of the docs anyway. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com